Conservation Strategy for the Eastern Monarch Butterfly (Danaus Plexippus) in Iowa

Home , Asclepias sullivantii, Danainae, Monarch butterfly, Plexippus (spider)

Conservation Strategy for the Eastern Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in Iowa

Version 2.1

Approved October 22, 2018 Meeting notes section updated 7/24/2020 ______Cover Page The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium members approved Version 2.1 of the Monarch Conservation Strategy and its implementation on October 22, 2018. Consortium members include: Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship; Iowa Department of Natural Resources; Iowa State University; Alliant Energy; BASF; Bayer CropScience; Blank Park Zoo; Bur Oak Land Trust; Central College; Cornell College; Corteva Agriscience, Agriculture Division of DowDuPont; Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives; Iowa Cattlemen’s Association; Iowa Corn Growers Association; Iowa County Conservation System; Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation; Iowa National Guard; Iowa Nature Conservancy; Iowa Pork Producers Association; Iowa Soybean Association; Iowa Renewable Fuels Association; Iowa Turkey Federation; Iowa Wildlife Federation; ITC Midwest; Luther College; Muscatine Island Research Farm Association, Fruitland, Iowa; Northeast Iowa Agricultural Experimental Association, Nashua IA; North Central Iowa Research Association, Kanawha IA; Northwest Iowa Experimental Association, Sutherland IA; Pheasants Forever; Polk County Conservation; Practical Farmers of Iowa; Prudenterra; Soil and Water Conservation Society; Southeast Iowa Agricultural Research Association, Crawfordsville, Iowa; Story County Conservation; Syngenta; Western Iowa Experimental Farm Association, Castana Iowa; University of Northern Iowa Tallgrass Prairie Center; United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit; Wallace Foundation for Rural Research and Development, Lewis Iowa; Whiterock Conservancy. Consortium partners include Environmental Defense Fund, Monarch Watch, Sand County Foundation, Trees Forever, University of Minnesota Monarch Butterfly Laboratory, and the Women Food & Ag Network. www.iowamonarchs.info

1 7Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ...... 8 2.0 Summary ...... 9 2.1 Monarch Life History ...... 9 2.2 Eastern Monarch Population Status ...... 9 2.3 Monarch Conservation in Iowa: The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium ...... 11 2.4 The Goal of the Conservation Strategy ...... 11 2.5 Strategy Highlights ...... 12 2.6 Conclusion ...... 14 3.0 Introduction ...... 16 3.1 Background ...... 16 3.2 Legal Status and Authority ...... 18 3.2.1 ESA Background...... 19 3.2.1.1 Pre-Listing Conservation Options ...... 21 3.2.1.2 Post-Listing Conservation Options ...... 21 3.2.2 Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy Conservation Option ...... 22 3.3 Species Information ...... 22 3.3.1 Distribution of Monarchs ...... 22 3.3.2 The Annual Cycle of the Eastern Monarch Population...... 23 3.3.3 The Importance of Milkweed ...... 24 3.3.4 Flowering Plants ...... 25 3.4 Status of Eastern Monarch Populations ...... 25 3.4.1 Historic Overview ...... 25 3.4.2 Current Status ...... 26 3.5 Potential Threats ...... 28 3.5.1 Deforestation of Overwintering Habitat ...... 28 3.5.2 Loss of Forage Sources ...... 28 3.5.3 Loss of Breeding Habitat ...... 29 3.5.4 Potential Impacts of Increased Milkweed Density on Larval Survival ...... 32 3.5.4.1 Predators and Parasites ...... 32 3.5.4.2 Pathogens ...... 33 4.0 Species Population and Habitat Goals ...... 34 4.1 Range-wide and Iowa Summary of Population and Habitat Goals ...... 34 4.2 Designing a Landscape to Conserve the Eastern Monarch Butterfly in Iowa ...... 36 4.3 Designing Habitat Patches for the Eastern Monarch Butterfly in Iowa ...... 36

2 5.0 Species Conservation in Iowa ...... 37 5.1 Administration ...... 37 5.1.1 Executive Committee ...... 37 5.1.2 Technical Committee ...... 37 5.1.3 Coordination with Regional and National Monarch Conservation Efforts ...... 38 5.1.3.1 Department of Natural Resources Monarch Conservation Activities ...... 38 5.1.3.2 USDA NRCS ...... 39 5.1.3.3 USDA FSA ...... 39 5.1.3.4 NC1205- Monarch Conservation ...... 40 5.1.3.5 Monarch Conservation Science Partnership ...... 40 5.1.3.6 Keystone Monarch Collaborative ...... 41 5.1.3.7 Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium ...... 41 5.1.3.8 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies ...... 41 5.1.3.9 Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies ...... 41 5.1.4 Measuring Progress ...... 42 5.1.4.1 Human Behaviors ...... 42 5.1.4.2 Outputs ...... 43 5.1.4.3 Outcomes ...... 43 5.2 Data Management ...... 44 5.2.1 Objective 1 – Assemble a Data Management Workgroup ...... 45 5.2.2 Objective 2 – Identify Data Needs ...... 46 5.2.3 Objective 3 – Acquire Required Data and Permissions ...... 46 5.2.4 Objective 4 – Establish Data Management Protocols ...... 46 5.2.5 Objective 5 – Establish Data Sharing Protocols ...... 46 5.3 Monitoring ...... 47 5.3.1 Tracking Habitat Efforts ...... 47 5.3.2 Biological Data Collection ...... 47 5.3.3 Established Monitoring Efforts ...... 47 5.3.3.1 Monarch Watch ...... 47 5.3.3.2 North American Butterfly Association ...... 48 5.3.3.3 Iowa Butterfly Survey Network ...... 48 5.3.3.4 Journey North ...... 48 5.3.3.5 Monarch Larva Monitoring Project ...... 49 5.3.3.6 Project Monarch Health ...... 49 5.3.3.7 Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program ...... 49

3 5.3.3.8 Mexico ...... 50 5.4 Landowner Recruitment ...... 50 5.4.1 Estimated Need for Voluntary Conservation ...... 51 5.4.2 Objective 1: Convene Landowner Recruitment Workgroup ...... 52 5.4.3 Objective 2: Develop and Deliver Incentives ...... 52 5.4.4 Objective 3: Conduct Site Assessments ...... 53 5.4.5 Objective 4: Draft Applications, Preliminary Plans, and Cost Estimates ...... 54 5.4.6 Objective 5: Draft and Review Land Management Eligibility Criteria ...... 54 5.4.7 Objective 6: Manage Parcel Information and Landowner Status ...... 54 5.5 Best Management Practices for Habitat by Sector ...... 54 5.5.1 BMPs for Agricultural Lands ...... 54 5.5.1.1 Introduction ...... 54 5.5.1.2 Site Selection...... 55 5.5.1.3 Site Preparation ...... 57 5.5.1.4 What to Plant: Seed Mix Development ...... 59 5.5.1.5 Planting ...... 60 5.5.1.6 Post-Planting Management ...... 61 5.5.1.7 Pest Management in Neighboring Crop Fields ...... 61 5.5.2 BMPs for Urban/Suburban Groups ...... 61 5.5.2.1 Monarch Biology and Ecology ...... 61 5.5.2.2 Creating Monarch Habitat in Urban and Suburban Areas ...... 63 5.5.2.3 Maintaining and Managing Monarch Habitat ...... 66 5.5.2.4 Educate and Spread the Word ...... 67 5.5.2.5 Plant Lists and Example Gardens ...... 68 5.5.2.6 Urban/Suburban References and Other Resources ...... 72 5.5.3 BMPs for State, County, Federal and NGO lands ...... 73 5.5.3.1 Monarch Biology and Ecology ...... 73 5.5.3.2 Creating Monarch Habitat in Public Areas ...... 74 5.5.3.3 Pesticide Usage ...... 80 5.5.3.4 Management Practices ...... 80 5.5.3.5 Literature Cited for BMPs for State, County and Federal Lands ...... 81 5.5.4 BMPs for Rights of Way (e.g., road, rail, utilities) ...... 82 5.5.4.1 County Roadsides ...... 82 5.6 Research...... 86 5.6.1 Active Research Projects: How to Plant Habitat ...... 86

4 5.6.1.1 ISU: NRCS CIG-US “Enhancing Monarch Butterfly Conservation in Iowa” ...... 86 5.6.1.2 ISU: NRCS CIG-IA “Integrating Nutrient Reduction and Monarch Conservation” ..... 86 5.6.1.3 ISU: ISA Grant “Establishing Monarch Habitat as Bioreactor Groundcover” ...... 86 5.6.1.4 ISU: IPPA Grant “Establishing Monarch Habitat on Iowa Swine Production Sites” .... 87 5.6.1.5 ISU: AFRI Grant ...... 87 5.6.1.6 University of Northern Iowa: Tallgrass Prairie Center ...... 87 5.6.2 Active Research Projects: Habitat Patches ...... 88 5.6.2.1 ISU/Consortium Funded Research ...... 88 5.6.2.2 Monarch Joint Venture ...... 88 5.6.3 Active Research Project: Roadside Habitat Evaluation ...... 89 5.6.3.1 Monarch Joint Venture: Roadside Evaluation ...... 89 5.6.4 Active Research Projects: How can Monitoring Efforts be Coordinated? ...... 89 5.6.4.1 Iowa DNR Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Program ...... 89 5.6.5 Active Research Projects: How will Climate affect Monarch Population Viability? ...... 89 5.6.5.1 ISU/Department of Defense ...... 89 5.6.6 Proposed Research: Evaluation of Existing Habitat ...... 90 5.6.6.1 ISU: Evaluation of Monarch Roadside Habitat and Monarch Mortality ...... 90 5.7 Information, Education and Outreach ...... 90 5.8 Accomplishments Through 2017 ...... 91 5.8.1 Federal Monarch Conservation Progress ...... 91 5.8.1.1 USDA NRCS ...... 93 5.8.1.2 USDA FSA ...... 93 5.8.1.3 USFWS ...... 93 5.8.2 US Army Corps of Engineers ...... 94 5.8.3 Iowa Monarch Conservation Progress ...... 94 5.8.3.1 Iowa DNR Monarch Conservation Activities ...... 94 5.8.3.2 IDALS: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant ...... 95 5.8.3.3 Iowa’s County Conservation System ...... 95 5.8.3.4 Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation: 2015 and 2016 NFWF Grants ...... 100 5.8.3.5 Monarch Watch ...... 101 5.8.3.6 Blank Park Zoo ...... 101 5.8.3.7 Sand County Foundation ...... 102 5.8.3.8 Resource Conservation and Development for Northeast Iowa ...... 102 6.0 Adaptive Management ...... 103 6.1 Plan Revision ...... 104

5 6.1.1 Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy Adaptive Management: ...... 106 6.1.1.1 Biological Planning ...... 106 6.1.1.2 Conservation Design ...... 106 6.1.1.3 Conservation Delivery ...... 106 6.1.1.4 Conservation Monitoring ...... 106 6.1.1.5 Timeline for Strategy Updates and Progress Assessment ...... 107 7.0 Budget Summary and Implementation Schedule ...... 111 8.0 Literature Cited ...... 112 9.0 Appendices ...... 123 9.1 Appendix A: Technical Committee Members ...... 123 9.2 Appendix B: PECE Process ...... 124 9.3 Appendix C: Pre-Listing Conservation Options ...... 126 9.4 Appendix D: Iowa Milkweed Species ...... 128 9.5 Appendix E: Common Native Prairie Forbs in Iowa ...... 131 9.6 Appendix F: Explanation of Sector Targets ...... 132 9.7 Appendix G: Consortium Committee and Workgroup Structure ...... 148 9.8 Appendix H: Best Management Practice Resource List ...... 149 9.9 Appendix I: Additional County Conservation Board Updates ...... 156 9.10 Appendix J: Executive Committee By-Laws ...... 159 9.11 Appendix K: Memorandum of Understanding: ...... 159 9.12 Appendix L: Monarch Habitat Decision Support Tools ...... 159 9.13 Appendix M: Executive and Technical Committee Members ...... 159 9.14 Appendix N: Habitat Monitoring Protocol ...... 159 9.15 Appendix O: Monarch Monitoring Protocol ...... 159 9.16 Appendix P: Information, Education and Outreach ...... 159 9.17 Appendix Q: Monarch Meetings Summary ...... 160

6 Foreword This Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy was made possible by the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium, associated organizations, and their staff by dedicating time and effort to planning, writing, and editing the document. Thank you to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship; Iowa Department of Natural Resources; Iowa State University; Alliant Energy; BASF; Bayer CropScience; Blank Park Zoo; Bur Oak Land Trust; Central College; Cornell College; Corteva Agriscience, Agriculture Division of DowDuPont; Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives; Iowa Cattlemen’s Association; Iowa Corn Growers Association; Iowa County Conservation System; Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation; Iowa National Guard; Iowa Nature Conservancy; Iowa Pork Producers Association; Iowa Soybean Association; Iowa Renewable Fuels Association; Iowa Turkey Federation; Iowa Wildlife Federation; ITC Midwest; Luther College; Muscatine Island Research Farm Association, Fruitland, Iowa; Northeast Iowa Agricultural Experimental Association, Nashua IA; North Central Iowa Research Association, Kanawha IA; Northwest Iowa Experimental Association, Sutherland IA; Pheasants Forever; Polk County Conservation; Practical Farmers of Iowa; Prudenterra; Soil and Water Conservation Society; Southeast Iowa Agricultural Research Association, Crawfordsville, Iowa; Story County Conservation; Syngenta; Western Iowa Experimental Farm Association, Castana Iowa; University of Northern Iowa Tallgrass Prairie Center; United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit; Wallace Foundation for Rural Research and Development, Lewis Iowa; Whiterock Conservancy. Consortium partners include Environmental Defense Fund, Monarch Watch, Sand County Foundation, Trees Forever, University of Minnesota Monarch Butterfly Laboratory, and the Women Food & Ag Network. The Iowa-based U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service are ex officio partners.

7 1.0 Executive Summary The Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy identifies the information and resources needed to sustain and advance monarch butterfly conservation efforts in Iowa. The eastern monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) population has experienced an 80% decline over the past two decades. Causes for the population decline include loss of milkweed habitat in the spring and summer breeding ranges of the United States, loss of overwintering habitat in Mexico, and extreme weather events. Iowa is in the center of the monarch’s summer breeding range, and roughly 40% of all monarch butterflies that overwinter in Mexico are estimated to come from Iowa and neighboring states in the Midwest. Since monarch caterpillars need milkweed to survive, one of the primary goals of conservation efforts is to establish milkweed as part of healthy natural ecosystems. Expanding monarch habitat in Iowa will play a major role in the recovery of the species. The strategy will guide the development, implementation and documentation of a voluntary, statewide conservation effort based on the best available science. The strategy includes information about the monarch butterfly, including a summary of its history, its population distribution, and its dependence on milkweed and other native plants; Iowa’s current habitat availability and habitat goal; and the types of conservation measures needed to support recovery of the population. The strategy also provides a roadmap for supporting the conservation effort through administration, information management, monitoring, and research and outreach. As conservation efforts progress, mechanisms will be in place to distribute information so successes are replicated throughout Iowa and beyond. The strategy also describes immediate conservation measures that can be undertaken. These include using resources in farm bill programs to establish monarch breeding habitat; volunteering to establish monarch habitat on farms in consortium-sponsored demonstration projects; using monarch-friendly weed management in ditches, roadsides and other rights-of-way; and establishing monarch waystations with native nectar plants and milkweeds in home and community gardens. The Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy will be a living document that incorporates new knowledge and accomplishments over time to provide the means to identify and quantify an active voluntary, conservation program, which in combination with regional and national efforts, results in the recovery of the species population.

2.0 Summary This Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy is a living document that describes purposeful, coordinated voluntary conservation measures based on the best available scientific information. Implementation of the Iowa strategy will contribute to the long-term conservation of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), while maintaining agricultural productivity. Future versions of the strategy will have additional specificity as the scale of implementation increases. Updates will be made to the strategy annually; however, necessary updates will be made as complementary federal and regional monarch conservation programs advance. 2.1 Monarch Life History The eastern monarch butterfly is famous for its annual migrations across North America (Summary Figure 1). During the fall migration from the United States and southern Canada to central Mexico, individual monarchs travel 3,000 mi (4,800 km).1 The spring migration from Mexico back to the United States and southern Canada spans two generations. During the summer, two to three additional generations breed primarily in Iowa and the Upper Midwest of the United States. Monarchs depend on milkweed plants (Asclepias sp.), flowering plants and forests for their survival across North America. Female monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed plants, and the caterpillars that hatch from the eggs feed exclusively on milkweed plants. Consequently, habitat that includes milkweed plants is necessary from the spring breeding range in Texas to the summer breeding range in the Midwestern United States and southern Canada. Adult monarchs need nectar from flowering plants during the spring and summer breeding seasons to support reproduction and during the fall to fuel their migration to Mexico. During the winter, adult monarchs congregate in the oyamel fir forests in the mountains of Michoacán, Mexico. 2.2 Eastern Monarch Population Status The eastern monarch population has experienced an 80% decline over the past two decades and is well below a level that is needed to withstand extreme weather events (e.g., prolonged drought in the spring or summer breeding range or a severe winter storm in Mexico) and maintain the North American migration. Causes for the population decline include loss of overwintering habitat, extreme weather events, and loss of milkweed plants. With programs in place to protect the overwintering habitat, expanding the breeding habitat in rural landscapes in Iowa and the Midwestern United States will have a critical, positive impact on stabilizing and enhancing monarch butterfly populations. Based on current, best available scientific information from the United States, Canada and Mexico, increasing the fall eastern monarch population to 225 million butterflies by 2020 should be sufficient to maintain the continental migration, even in the face of extreme climatic events. It is currently estimated that to reach this population goal, approximately 7,000,000 ac (3,000,000 ha) of new monarch habitat, including milkweed and blooming plants, is needed in the United States. For the North Central States, a conservation goal of adding

1 Relevant facts are backed by scientific documentation, but the citations were removed from the summary for space and simplicity. Citations are included in the body of the strategy with a literature cited section following.

9 1,300,000,000 to 1,600,000,000 new milkweed stems over the next 20 years has been proposed. The Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies2 released the Mid-America Monarch Conservation Strategy with the goal to attain 1,300,000,000 new stems in the monarch’s northern breeding zone.

Summary Figure 1. Monarch fall and spring migration routes. Figure used with permission courtesy of Monarch Watch.

Due to the decline in monarch populations, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was petitioned in 2014 to determine if the monarch should be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under a consent decree, the USFWS committed to making a determination on the listing petition by June of 2019. Establishing and implementing a viable, voluntary Iowa monarch conservation program in 2018 can provide private landowners flexibility in implementing conservation practices and avoid significant regulatory and management burdens if the species is listed in 2019.

2 http://www.mafwa.org/?page_id=2347

10 2.3 Monarch Conservation in Iowa: The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium The strategy is an outcome of the efforts undertaken by the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium (http://www.iowamonarchs.info), which held its first meeting in February of 2015. The Consortium is a community-led organization comprised of 44 members and 6 partners whose mission is to enhance monarch butterfly reproduction and survival in Iowa through collaborative and coordinative efforts of farmers, private citizens, and their organizations. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) and Iowa State University (ISU) College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) provide overall leadership and facilitation for the consortium. Through Iowa DNR, IDALS, ISU and ex officio members to the consortium from the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the consortium and the development of the strategy is current with, and leveraging, developments in other state, regional and national monarch conservation efforts. Shortly after the consortium’s formation, a workgroup was established to provide background information to the members and partners on scientific, policy, and legal issues associated with development and implementation of conservation strategies addressing species being evaluated for federal protection in the United States. The membership for the Technical Committee (Appendix A) and its products (Appendix Q) are documented in this strategy. The workgroup met from the spring of 2015 through the summer of 2016 to review conservation efforts (i.e., plans, strategies, etc.) for other petitioned species, as well as candidate species and species listed under the ESA. These other efforts helped inform the approach for an Iowa-based monarch conservation strategy. The meetings included teleconferences with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff responsible for implementing the Working Lands for Wildlife Program as well as staff and managers from the USFWS. In January of 2016, the consortium approved the workgroup’s proposal that an Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy be prepared, and in June of 2016, an associated work plan to develop Version 1 of the strategy was approved. Version 1 of the strategy was released publicly in February of 2017. Version 2.0, which included monarch habitat goals for Iowa, was released March 12, 2018. Version 2.1 was updated with additional detail about Data Management, Monitoring, Adaptive Management and Best Management Practices by sector and was released October 22, 2018. 2.4 The Goal of the Conservation Strategy The Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy is a living document designed to guide the development, implementation and documentation of a voluntary conservation effort undertaken by members of the organizations in the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium. Version 1.0 of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy was the first step in formulating and implementing a conservation effort. Version 2.0 of the strategy provides Iowa’s monarch habitat goal and land cover/land-use specific habitat targets that were developed in light of related regional and national monarch conservation planning. Detail about Data Management, Monitoring, Adaptive Management and Best Management Practices by sector was added in Version 2.1. Implementation of the

11 conservation efforts described in the strategy will enhance monarch reproduction and survival in Iowa and will contribute to national efforts to preclude the need to list the species under the ESA. The Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy provides a framework that supports identification, implementation and evaluation of conservation efforts in Iowa. All monarch-related conservation activities currently being implemented or planned within Iowa are purposeful and voluntary in nature. There are no real or implied legal requirements for private landowners to participate in the strategy. To the extent that Iowa’s voluntary conservation efforts, combined with other voluntary efforts in states across the spring and summer breeding range, are successful and there is no need for a listing under the ESA, future regulatory impacts to landowners can be avoided as well as any regulatory requirements that are placed on government agencies. If conservation efforts are not sufficient to avoid a USFWS determination to list the species as threatened in June of 2019, private landowners participating in the Iowa conservation strategy would likely receive assurances that additional conservation efforts would not be required by the USFWS under the ESA, if the ongoing voluntary conservation efforts are scientifically sound and can be reasonably expected to continue into the future. By implementing a voluntary, pre-listing conservation strategy, participants can have more flexibility integrating conservation practices within their ongoing operations and avoid more complicated and potentially inflexible conservation plans that could be required by the USFWS after a listing decision. 2.5 Strategy Highlights The Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy requires creation of an organizational infrastructure to manage and support the essential components of the effort. The strategy will be administered by an executive committee and a technical committee. The technical committee will be responsible for overseeing the planning and execution of the strategy in several areas including data management; monitoring; research; landowner recruitment; adaptive management; and information, education and outreach. The technical committee will also be responsible for developing yearly work plans and annual reports for review and approval by the Executive Committee. Annual planning and progress reports will be based on the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy’s Logic Model (Summary Figure 2), which identifies inputs, outputs and outcomes over time. The logic model will be updated and refined in future versions of the strategy. The technical committee will coordinate efforts with other national and regional monarch conservation efforts to minimize duplication of efforts and maximize collaboration and efficiency. Examples of these related federal, state and university-led efforts include, but are not limited to: the USFWS and its Monarch Advisory Committee and Species Status Assessment (SSA) team; the USFWS Monarch Conservation Science Partnership; Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (MAFWA) Monarch Working Group; USDA NRCS, USDA NRCS/USFWS Monarch Butterfly Partnership; a monarch conservation research project being implemented by ISU and other land grant universities across the monarch spring and summer breeding ranges; and the Keystone Monarch Collaborative.

12 Summary Figure 2. The Iowa Monarch Conservation Logic Model describes the flow between inputs and behavior to outputs and outcomes. It will be further refined in Version 2 of the strategy based on experiences gained and adaptive management.

The ultimate goal of these collaborative efforts is to increase the breeding habitat available to monarchs. The Mid-America Monarch Conservation Strategy describes how the North Central states in the monarch’s northern breeding ground will collectively establish 1.3 billion new milkweed stems over the next 20 years. Iowa’s strategy estimates 127,000,000 to 188,000,000 new stems will be established on 480,000 to 830,000 acres (190,000 to 340,000 ha) within Iowa to help meet the regional goal (Table S1).

Table S1: Estimated range of acres and milkweed stem targets for monarch habitat establishment in Iowa from 2015 to 2038 by land-use category.

Acres Range Stems* Range Urban/Suburban 39,774 198,870 Urban/Suburban 1,300,000 5,600,000 Public† 144,041 156,674 Public† 28,527,789 31,030,041 Other† 62,749 67,049 Other† 12,549,800 13,409,800 Road Rights-of-Ways 19,000 21,000 Road Rights-of-Ways 6,156,000 6,804,000 Agricultural 214,000 387,000 Agricultural 78,000,000 131,000,000 Total 479,564 830,593 Total 126,533,589 187,843,841 * New stems include stems derived from new seeding and subsequent propagation. Biologically reasonable stem densities of 10 to 50, 197 to 199, 200, 200 to 324, and 150 to 600 stems/acre were assumed for Urban/Suburban; Public Lands; Other; Road Rights- of-Ways and Agriculture, respectively. † These sectors include stems planted since 2015 through US Fish and Wildlife Service and other public programs.

13 The success of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy ultimately depends on voluntary participation. Best management practices (BMPs) by sector--including agricultural lands; backyard gardeners; urban groups; schools and churches; and federal, state, and local agencies (nongovernmental conservation lands); recreational landowners; and rights of ways--will be elaborated in future versions of the strategy. Adaptive management strategies for these BMPs will be employed as experience is gained and new information becomes available. While research in progress will refine conservation practices for different land use scenarios, five conservation actions (below) for monarchs are already available. 2.6 Conclusion Ultimately, the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy will be a living document that uses current knowledge to provide a framework that both defines and quantifies active conservation efforts to the extent that there is no need for listing, impacts to landowners are avoided, and regulatory burden on agencies is removed.

Five Ways to Help the Monarchs

Take advantage of farm bill programs to establish monarch breeding habitat. Increasing the number of milkweeds and nectar-producing plants is vitally important for monarch conservation. These efforts also benefit other pollinators and related wildlife conservation goals. More detail is available at local USDA Service Centers or at nrcs.usda.gov. Establish monarch habitat on your farm as part of a demonstration project. Consider installing habitat as you install bioreactors, grassed waterways or other erosion control practices. Areas near livestock buildings or other unused areas of your farm can also become useful habitat. Find a local conservation expert to help you get started: https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/wildlife/contacts/Wildlife-Habitat- Programs-and-Consultation Follow federal pesticide labels and state regulations when applying pesticides labeled as toxic to bees to avoid unnecessary exposure to pollinators and monarchs. Adjust spray equipment to reduce drift by using low pressures, large droplets, and low boom heights. Avoid applications when wind speed is above 10 miles per hour or wind direction is toward monarch habitat. More detail is available at epa.gov/pollinator-protection. Use monarch-friendly weed management recommendations for odd areas, roadsides and other rights- of-way (ROWs). Roadsides and ROWs offer opportunities for miles of monarch habitat (nectar and milkweed species). The Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management program at the University of Northern Iowa provides information on maintenance of roadsides using management strategies that reduce mowing and application of herbicides, which supports monarch and pollinator habitat along roadsides. More detail is available at https://tallgrassprairiecenter.org/irvm. Establish a Monarch Waystation, a garden with both nectar plants and milkweeds, where monarchs can find nectar and reproduce. Monarchs lay eggs on milkweeds, the only food monarch caterpillars eat. Adults need flower nectar from spring through fall. More information is available at monarchwatch.org. The Five Ways to Help the Monarchs were developed by the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium.

15 3.0 Introduction The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) population has experienced troubling declines over the past two decades in North America (Jepsen et al. 2015; Brower et al. 2012b). While the 2018 adult population overwintering in Mexico was larger compared to the low 2013 and 2014 levels3, over the last two decades the population has declined by 80% (Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012). The 10 ac (4 ha) of occupied overwintering forest in 2015 was well below the target of 15 ac (6 ha) needed to support a resilient population and reduce the risk of quasi-extinction (loss of the North American migration) in the next 10 to 20 years (Semmens et al. 2016). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is evaluating listing the monarch as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (USFWS 2014a, 2014b), indicating the urgency of a viable monarch conservation program as a potential listing will lead to significant regulatory and management burdens for farmers and livestock producers. The White House (USG 2015) established the goal of increasing the eastern monarch population to 225 million butterflies by 2020 with approximately 15 ac (6 ha) of overwintering grounds. 3.1 Background The Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy documents the management and activities of a conservation program that is being undertaken by members of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium (see cover page). The strategy is an outcome of the efforts undertaken by the consortium (www.iowamonarchs.info), which held its first meeting in February of 2015. The consortium is a community-led organization comprised of 44 members4 and 6 partners5 whose mission is to enhance monarch butterfly reproduction and survival in Iowa through collaborative and coordinative efforts of farmers, private citizens, and their organizations. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS), and Iowa State University (ISU) College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) provide overall leadership and facilitation for the consortium. Through Iowa DNR, IDALS, ISU and ex officio members to the consortium from the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the consortium and the development of the strategy is current with, and leveraging, developments in other state, regional and national monarch conservation efforts.

3 https://monarchjointventure.org/news-events/news/eastern-monarch-overwintering-population-numbers-announced 4 Members of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium have a presence in Iowa (e.g., members’ business activities, conservation programs, research, outreach etc.) and a commitment to contribute in-kind resources or financial investment to meet the strategic goals of the consortium. 5 Partners of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium have a presence regionally or nationally in monarch conservation, and/or in related habitat conservation efforts, and a commitment to meet the strategic goals of the consortium.

16 Shortly after the consortium’s formation, a workgroup was established to provide background information to the members and partners on scientific, policy, and legal issues associated with development and implementation of conservation strategies addressing species being evaluated for federal protection in the United States. The membership for the Technical Committee (Appendix A) and its Memorable products (Appendix Q) are documented in this strategy. Monarchs The workgroup met from the spring of 2015 through the summer of 2016 to review conservation efforts (i.e., plans, Probably no other invertebrate strategies, etc.) for other petitioned species, as well as species is both as well known candidate species and species listed under the ESA. These and evokes the same nostalgic other efforts helped inform the approach for an Iowa-based emotional response from monarch conservation strategy. The meetings included Americans as monarch teleconferences with USDA Natural Resources butterflies. Most children, at Conservation Service (NRCS) staff responsible for least in Midwestern states like implementing the Working Lands for Wildlife Program as Iowa, are introduced to the well as staff and managers from the USFWS. In January of process of monarch 2016, the consortium approved the workgroup’s proposal metamorphosis at least once in that an Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy be prepared, their elementary school when a and in June of 2016, an associated work plan to develop yellow, black and white Version 1.0 of the strategy was approved. Version 1.0 of monarch caterpillar is brought the strategy was publicly released in February of 2017. into their classroom. Fed a diet of milkweed until it forms a Version 1.0 of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy bright green chrysalis, which is reflected the initial steps in formulating a state-based, watched daily with anxious voluntary approach for the conservation of the species. The anticipation, the chrysalis strategy is a living document that will be updated on a eventually splits open and a periodic basis as national, regional and state habitat and butterfly with tiny, rudimentary species population goals are formulated. Updates to the wings emerges. On that strategy will take advantage of ongoing research to ensure memorable day, the monarch the best available science is incorporated into conservation pumps fluid from its abdomen practices. Further development and implementation of the into its wings until they are Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy also requires creation fully formed and hardened. of an organizational infrastructure and an associated The next day, the entire class articulation of the essential components of the conservation convenes on the school effort. Consequently, Version 1.0 of the strategy addressed playground, the jar is opened governance of the effort and summarized currently and the butterfly is released. available scientific information, including ongoing research The lesson is complete—the in Iowa. Version 1.0 of the strategy also provided a memories formed. perspective on “next steps” and documents components of the strategy that would be addressed in future versions. Version 2.0 of the strategy provides a presentation of Iowa’s monarch habitat goal and land

17 cover/land-use category-specific habitat targets. Version 2.1 includes additional detail about Data Management, Monitoring, Adaptive Management and Best Management Practices (BMPs) by sector. Ultimately, the goal of the strategy is to provide a framework that both defines and quantifies active conservation efforts to the extent that there is no need for listing, impacts to landowners and regulatory burden on agencies are minimized, and regulatory burden on agencies is removed. The strategy includes eight sections: (1) a summary; (2) an introduction, which describes the purpose, legal status and authority, species information, historic distribution and current status, and threats; (3) species population and habitat goals, which describes range-wide population and habitat goals, landscape design using modeling, and design of habitat patches; (4) species conservation in Iowa, which describes Iowa-specific population and habitat goals and targets, accomplishments, administration, data management, monitoring, landowner recruitment efforts, best habitat management practices, research, and information/education/outreach efforts; (5) adaptive management; (6) implementation schedule and budget; (7) literature cited; and (8) appendices, which with further development, will include bylaws, a memorandum of understanding, monarch habitat decision support tools, executive and technical committee member lists, habitat monitoring protocol, monarch monitoring protocol, and details relating to information, education, and outreach. 3.2 Legal Status and Authority As a non-federally listed insect species, management of the monarch within the state of Iowa lies primarily with the state. Iowa law states that title and ownership of all wildlife found in Iowa, including non-game species such as the monarch, is in the state, subject to some non-applicable exceptions6. Currently there is no governmental protection for monarchs or monarch habitat on private property and no limitations on land use or other activities that might impact monarchs. All monarch-related conservation activities currently being implemented or planned within Iowa are purposeful and voluntary in nature as there are no legal requirements for landowners to participate in any such efforts. Iowa law regulates the take and possession of wildlife based on a species’ designated status (e.g., game, non-game, threatened or endangered). The monarch is classified as a non-protected, non- game species.7 The Iowa DNR, through the Natural Resource Commission, has the authority to classify the monarch as threatened or endangered under Iowa law through the rulemaking process8; however, it has not determined that such an effort is warranted at this time. In the event that the monarch is federally listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS, its status under state law would change, as federally listed species are automatically afforded state protection based of their federal status9 The monarch is currently classified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the Iowa Wildlife Action Plan (IWAP) (Iowa DNR 2015); however, this classification does not provide any legal protection for the species.

6 Iowa Code 481A.2 7 Iowa Code 481A.42. Note that insects are not included within “protected nongame.” 8 Iowa Code 481B.3 9 Iowa Code 481B.5(2)

18 Non-protected, non-game species, such as the monarch, receive no broad, direct protection under Iowa law. It is currently legal to take and/or possess monarchs within the state. Restrictions on take are generally limited to those imposed by landowners. For example, a DNR–issued permit is required to take monarchs on any state lands under the jurisdiction of the DNR, a federal permit is required to take monarchs on national wildlife refuges, and many counties have ordinance provisions prohibiting take of non-game species on county-owned lands without permission or a permit. Monarchs and monarch habitat present on private lands are not subject to any government protections or restrictions. The primary state agency charged with managing wildlife within Iowa is the Iowa DNR. The Iowa DNR is given the very broad duties of maintaining and preserving animal life and conserving the natural resources of the state using sound scientific principles in an effort to maintain biological balance.10 To this end, Iowa DNR is committed to actions that will enhance species conservation and prevent the need for federal jurisdiction under the ESA. More specifically, it is directed to undertake the establishment, restoration, and enhancement of wildlife habitat, to promote wildlife diversity, and to provide technical assistance and financial incentives to private landowners to promote the management of wildlife and wildlife habitat.11 Additionally, the Iowa DNR is given the directive to conduct research relating to population, distribution, habitat needs, limiting factors, and other biological and ecological data to determine management measures necessary to maintain sustainable wildlife populations.12 As such, acting as the lead state agency in developing and implementing monarch conservation measures is solidly within the Iowa DNR’s legal authority and is consistent with its overall mission to protect and enhance Iowa’s natural resources. 3.2.1 ESA Background The USFWS was petitioned in 2015 (USFWS 2014a, 2014b) to evaluate whether the monarch should be designated as a threatened species under the ESA. In July of 2016, a federal court provided a three-year extension to the USFWS before making a decision. The agency’s decision is now due in June of 2019. Extensive rules and regulations apply once a species is listed. The policy description summaries in the rest of this section based on the USFWS Endangered Species Laws & Policies and Regulations and Policies page (USFWS 2017). Conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, and similar documents generally identify numerous conservation efforts (i.e., actions, activities, or programs) to benefit the species. In determining whether a formalized conservation effort contributes to forming a basis for not listing a species, or for listing a species as threatened rather than endangered, the USFWS must evaluate whether the conservation effort improves the status of the species under the ESA. Two factors are key in that evaluation: (1) for those efforts yet to be implemented, the certainty that the conservation effort will be implemented and (2) for those efforts that have not yet demonstrated effectiveness, the certainty that the conservation effort will be effective. Since the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of formalized conservation efforts may vary, the USFWS will

10 Iowa Code 461A.3 11 Iowa Code 461.32 12 Iowa Code 481B.3

19 evaluate each effort individually and use a set of criteria to direct the analysis using the Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE). These PECE criteria can be found in Appendix B. If the USFWS ultimately lists the monarch, then non-federal landowners whose actions can harm the butterfly or its habitat will need an incidental take permit from the USFWS to proceed with an activity that would otherwise result in an unlawful “take” (i.e., harm) to the butterfly or its habitat. For example, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (see Appendix C), approved by the USFWS, is a prerequisite to receiving an incidental take permit. The HCPs can require implementation of conservation measures to address those activities that could result in harm to the species or its habitat. Non-federal landowners can also establish conservation plans before USFWS determines the status of a species (i.e., before USFWS determines a species is [a] warranted for listing, or [b] warranted but precluded for immediate listing – a candidate species; or [c] not warranted for listing). State and regional conservation plans or pre-listing conservation actions (PCAs; see Appendix C), developed and implemented before a listing decision, establish beneficial, voluntary conservation practices that, if implemented, are beneficial to a species under review. The implemented conservation efforts may not be as exacting or rigorous as those that would be required for USFWS to determine a listing is not warranted or for USFWS to issue an incidental take permit under a HCP, if the species was listed. The USFWS–approved conservation plans developed and implemented after a warranted or candidate designation, but before a final listing decision, can have regulatory certainty/assurances (“no surprises”) for non-federal landowners; i.e., if the species is ultimately listed, the USFWS will not require additional land management requirements beyond those specified in an approved plan due to unforeseen circumstances in the future. These plans are called Candidate Conservation Action with Assurances (CCAAs; see Appendix C and Figure 1).

Figure 1. Terminology for Conservation Plans.

With approval of a CCAA, USFWS issues an Enhancement of Survival Permit (a type of incidental take permit) that documents regulatory assurances for participating non-federal landowners. The conservation practices in a CCAA are of sufficient rigor that if other landowners outside the CCAA adopted the same conservation practices the species would not require listing.

20 The CCAAs (and the resultant permits) can be established by (issued to) individual landowners. “Programmatic” conservation plans (and resultant permit[s]) can be established for a group of participating landowners. Typically, a state agency facilitates the development of a programmatic agreement, its review by USFWS and its implementation. In summary, upon approval of a HCP (for a listed species) or a CCAA (for a candidate species prior to a final listing decision) by the USFWS, the USFWS can then issue an incidental take permit(s) to those non-federal landowners that are participating in the conservation effort. To issue a permit, USFWS confirms the conservation measures in the plan will meet the standards under section 10(a)(1) of the ESA for a listed species, or in the case of a candidate species, confirms the conservation measures are sufficient to preclude the need for listing assuming other landowners in the species’ range adopted the same measures. If the USFWS ultimately decides not to list a candidate species, then the development and approval of a pre-listing plan should have no regulatory impact under the ESA on future land-management practices of non-federal landowners (assuming USFWS is unlikely to revisit a “no listing” decision in the foreseeable future or is not forced to reverse a “no listing” decision by the courts). Pre-listing conservation plans, with (e.g., CCAAs) or without (e.g., PCAs) regulatory assurances are science-based and founded on relationships between the nature and extent of habitat and expected responses of the species population. They include monitoring programs to assess outputs and performance outcomes, incorporate adaptive conservation management approaches and employ governance procedures to ensure implementation of conservation practices. However, as noted above, the rigor of a pre- listing effort that can provide regulatory assurances is more specific and exacting. Over time an implemented pre-listing plan that is beneficial to a species, but not of sufficient rigor to provide regulatory assurances, can be enhanced such that USFWS could issue an Enhancement of Survival Permit in the future, assuming the enhanced plan was approved as a CCAA by USFWS before a final listing decision. A summary of the post- and pre-listing options are provided in the following sections with more detail in Appendix C. 3.2.1.1 Pre-Listing Conservation Options Pre-listing plans are designed to address habitat conservation for a species prior to potential listing (i.e., candidate species being reviewed for potential listing or species determined to be warranted for listing but currently precluded from listing). Options include a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA), CCAA, or a PCA. Pre-listing programs can be designed to preclude the need for listing. If the species is ultimately listed, future conservation management requirements for an incidental take permit may provide more options, as compared to a situation where no pre-listing conservation activities were undertaken. More detail on pre-listing conservation options can be found in Appendix C. 3.2.1.2 Post-Listing Conservation Options Post-listing conservation options are more stringent and difficult (and inconvenient) to achieve. Options include a HCP, Safe Harbor Agreements for Private Landowners, and Conservation Banks. More detail on post-listing conservation options can be found in Appendix C.

21 3.2.2 Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy Conservation Option The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium met in January of 2016, and given that existing and new monarch habitat will be located on private lands, a programmatic pre-listing conservation effort was selected by the consortium as the most flexible, effective and efficient approach for moving forward. The consortium requested that Version 1.0 of an Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy be created during 2016. The first version of the strategy was publicly released in February of 2017.

The consortium is optimistic that if the implemented conservation strategy in Iowa and other states in the species range are successful, the USFWS may not be required to list the species. If the species is listed, the consortium also agreed that the conservation strategy will be prepared with sufficient rigor, over time, such that it could be converted to a CCAA and thereby provide those private landowners voluntarily participating in the conservation plan regulatory assurances. Finally, the consortium concluded that a programmatic CCAA is preferred as compared to individual landowners developing their unique plans with USFWS. Under this scenario, Iowa DNR may be the facilitating state agency to implement the programmatic conservation plan; however, consistent with the operating principles of the consortium, IDALS, ISU and consortium members will work collaboratively to facilitate an efficient and effective effort.

Development of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy was based on the conservation strategy established for the New England cottontail (Fuller et. al. 2012), which is an example of successful, voluntary pre-listing conservation plan (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/newenglandcottontail). Version 1.0 of the Iowa strategy was intended to provide an overall structure and guidance to the wide variety of monarch conservation activities being planned or already underway in Iowa. Version 2.0 of the strategy provides Iowa’s habitat goal and land cover/land-use category-specific habitat targets. Future versions will add elements that will form the basis of a CCAA, if needed. 3.3 Species Information 3.3.1 Distribution of Monarchs Three distinct populations of monarchs exist in North America and are defined by their breeding distributions. The eastern population, with its stronghold in the Midwestern Corn Belt, breeds from the western border of the Northern Tallgrass Prairie Ecoregion to the Atlantic coast, and as far north as southern Canada and winters in Mexico (Brower and Calvert 1985). A small monarch population in peninsular Florida resides there year round. Some eastern population monarchs may migrate to Florida and simply remain there, as may their descendants. The eastern monarch population is famous for its annual southward fall migration from the United States and Canada to central Mexico. During the fall migration, an individual monarch travels roughly 3,000 mi (4,800 km). The spring migration north spans several generations. The western population of monarchs typically migrates to sites in coastal California but has been found in overwintering Mexican sites as well. No genetic differences between monarch populations apparently exist (but see Zahn et al. 2014, which suggests Florida population may be somewhat different genetically); reproductive isolation has not created subspecies (Brower and Boyce 1991; Lyons et al. 2012).

22 Iowa may be the most essential state in the Midwest for the eastern population of monarchs during the breeding season. Thus, the remainder of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy will focus on the eastern population of monarchs, the most likely factors suppressing their numbers, and the conservation actions, especially in Iowa, that are most likely to rehabilitate the species. 3.3.2 The Annual Cycle of the Eastern Monarch Population In early September, individuals belonging to the eastern population of monarchs begin a migration of several thousand miles (Figure 2) to their wintering grounds in a small, mountainous area of Michoacán, Mexico, roughly 40 mi (65 km) west of Mexico City (Urquhart and Urquhart 1976, 1978). In an arc of oyamel fir (Abies religiosa) forests about 70 mi (110 km) long from north to south, the monarchs establish at least 12 wintering colonies on the south slopes of mountains, at the heads of drainages above 10,000 to 10,500 ft (3,000 to 3,200 m) elevation. By forming dense clusters on trees and shrubs, they help moderate their microclimate, ensuring that it is neither too warm nor too cold, which would adversely affect survival. Nevertheless, major mortality events of greater than 70% do periodically occur, usually associated with cold, wet weather, as in 1981, 2002 and 2004 (Calvert et al. 1983; Brower et al. 2004, 2005). In the spring of 2016, a major winter sleet storm hit the wintering areas causing up to 50% mortality in some colonies, although some monarchs had already started migrating north (World Wildlife Fund 2017). Climate change scenarios that predict more frequent extreme weather events could mean that monarch populations will exhibit even more annual variability, which could raise the likelihood of extinction (Semmens et al. 2016). In late February, a northward spring migration begins (Figure 2); the first phase culminating with the over-wintering generation laying eggs in mid-March on milkweed plants in eastern and central Texas and Oklahoma (Malcolm et al. 1993). These eggs hatch into 1st generation caterpillars, which pupate and emerge as adults in late April or early May. Caterpillars go through five instars, each associated with rapid growth when the exoskeleton is shed. First generation adults continue to migrate into the mid-latitude states (38°N to 49°N latitude) where 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generations are produced. It is likely that, given late summer temperatures, most 3rd and 4th generation butterflies are produced north of 40°N latitude, which includes Iowa (Nail et al. 2015). The average life span of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generations is 6 to 12 weeks with only 2 to 6 weeks as adults. However, 3rd or 4th or 5th generation monarchs that emerge when day length is short and nighttime temperatures are cool may remain sexually immature and migrate southward (Barker and Herman 1976; Herman 1981, 1985). The 4th or 5th generation is physiologically unique, surviving 180 to 240 days from August to the following March when the annual cycle begins again. Some 4th generation monarchs may produce a 5th generation in the south. Fifth generation individuals do not appear to be

23 common, and the importance of 5th generation monarchs to the overwintering populations is unknown.

Figure 2. Monarch fall and spring migration routes. Figure used with permission courtesy of Monarch Watch.

3.3.3 The Importance of Milkweed There are approximately 100 known species of milkweed (Asclepias spp.) in the United States, and 18 species are native to Iowa (the 18th species is the endangered Mead’s Milkweed) (Eilers and Roosa 1994; Appendix D). Milkweed is named for its milky sap, which consists of a latex containing alkaloids and several other complex compounds including cardenolides (Malcolm et al. 1989, Malcolm 1995). Milkweed species are normally found in grassland, damp soils or wetlands, but a few species occur in deciduous forest or in deserts (Woodson 1954; Kaul et al. 1991). Of the five species common in Iowa, common milkweed is by far the best known and most abundant, but other species, particularly swamp milkweed, may be preferred by female monarchs for oviposition (Pocius et al. 2018). Females also laid more eggs when there were multiple species of milkweeds present (Pocius et al. 2018). Monarchs are milkweed obligates because females will only lay eggs on milkweed, and larvae will only feed on milkweed. By eating milkweed, caterpillars accumulate toxins from the plant called

24 cardenolides (cardiac glycosides), which are sequestered in the exoskeleton of the caterpillar and the wings of the adult, causing vertebrate predators to vomit or have a mild heart arrhythmia that promotes learned avoidance (Brower 1984). While monarch larval growth and survivorship differ between milkweed species, milkweed species should be selected by matching site conditions with the growing conditions needed by a particular milkweed species because monarchs will readily utilize many milkweeds as larval hosts (Pocius et al. 2017) and for oviposition (Pocius et al. 2018). Gravid (mated) female monarchs use visual and chemical cues to locate milkweeds (Garlick 2007). Females are estimated to lay 300 eggs before dying. Monarch eggs and early larval instars suffer mortality rates of 90% or higher (De Anda and Oberhauser 2015; Oberhauser et al. 2015 and references cited therein). 3.3.4 Flowering Plants Since adult monarchs depend on nectar as a source of energy for flight and egg production, it is critical that flowering plants be abundant whenever monarchs are present during the annual cycle. In Iowa, this means roughly May 15 through mid-October. Monarch adults are generalists, and virtually any flowering plants that produce nectar are suitable food for adults. Little is known about potential preference for species of flowering plants, including native prairie forbs and ornamental flowering plants in gardens. If the goal is to create a garden for monarchs and other butterflies during the breeding or migration seasons, the species selected for the garden are generally less important than the time of year they flower. However, if the goal is to create a larger block of habitat for monarchs and other pollinators, for example, on the acres of a farm that are least profitable for farming, then native prairie forbs will be more beneficial and require less maintenance over the long term but more maintenance short term. Availability of flowering plants during migration is particularly important because migrating adults must not only consume enough calories from nectar to fuel the long flight south to Mexico but must also accumulate enough additional calories to build fat reserves to sustain them through the winter (Brower et al. 2015). See Appendix E for detail on bloom times of selected flowering plants. 3.4 Status of Eastern Monarch Populations 3.4.1 Historic Overview In pre-settlement European times, optimal spring and summer breeding habitat for monarchs was likely prairies, grasslands, savannas, and wetlands in the Midwest and eastern plains. Midwestern pre-settlement landscapes were characterized by “a rich pre-colonial milkweed flora [that] was widely distributed,” with 29 species of Asclepias, most of them grassland species (Woodson 1954; Hartman 1986) native to the late summer breeding range of the monarch (Malcolm et al. 1989, 1993; Wassenaar and Hobson 1998; Brower et al. 2012a). Pre-settlement vegetation in Iowa was dominated by prairie and prairie wetlands in the north and prairie/oak savanna in the south, with gallery-type forests along the streams and rivers, including larger patches along the Mississippi River and in northeast Iowa. Early descriptions of monarchs on the prairies and/or in Iowa are given in Brower (1995):

25 During September 1867 in southwestern Iowa, Allen (in Scudder & Allen 1869: 331) described monarchs gathered in several groves of trees bordering the prairie “in such vast numbers, on the lee sides of trees, and particularly on the lower branches, as almost to hide the foliage, and give to the trees their own peculiar color.” The accumulation of anecdotal notes of monarch swarms from the prairies across the Great Lake states to New England, supplemented by frequent newspaper and signal officer reports of swarms passing over Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas, finally convinced Riley (1878) that the monarch indeed performs a bird-like fall migration. Riley (1880) described monarchs flourishing on “the vast plains and prairies lying to the north between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains” where “milk-weeds abound.” While this may have reflected his living in the Midwest as the Missouri State entomologist, it also is possible that the eastern prairies were where most monarch breeding did naturally occur. Perhaps significantly, Doubleday and Westwood (1846 to 1852) stated that, “Danais Archippus [the monarch] is abundant even in the largest towns of the Middle and Northern states.” Shannon’s (1916) description of monarchs migrating through Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and eastern Texas is certainly consistent with the early observations. Contrasting these numbers with the smaller migrations through Illinois and the states to the east, he stated that the “wide highways of the Great Plains and West Central States offer the most frequent reports of remarkable butterfly spectacles, gatherings of almost unbelievable magnitude ... move forward in congregations ... miles in width … forming veritable crimson clouds.” With the loss of prairie and its replacement by croplands, monarchs likely increasingly used common milkweed found in agricultural habitats (within fields and field margins) pastures, and disturbed areas such as roadsides, field edges, and railroad corridors in an attempt to replace lost natural habitat (Pleasants 2015). According to Brower (1995): I propose that Riley’s emphasis on the prairie states as the original center of summer breeding was not biased and that monarchs actually expanded their area of intensive breeding from the midwestern to the eastern states during the latter part of the 19th century. This would have been caused by plowing and deforestation greatly altering milkweed distributions and abundances in both the prairie and the northern forest ecosystems (Marks 1983). Since 1999, monarch breeding habitat in Iowa corn and soybean fields has declined with changes in farming practices (Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012). Most monarch breeding habitat in Iowa is assumed to be in native and restored prairie and savanna, wetlands (including shallow depressional wetlands and riparian areas), pastures and hayfields, roadsides and transmission line corridors, pollinator gardens, and some sites managed under specified USDA Farm Bill Programs; e.g., eligible land in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or the Environmental Quality Innovation Program (EQIP). 3.4.2 Current Status During the last 21 years, records of the size of eastern monarch wintering colonies have been collected in the very limited number of colonies in the oyamel fir forests in the mountains of

26 Michoacán, Mexico. Although colony size may change slightly based on weather, colony size is thought to be a reasonable index to population size. From 1994 to 2018, the total average size of wintering colonies was 14.0 ac (5.65 ha), and from 2004 to 2018, it was only 8.11 ac (3.28 ha) (Figure 3). The eastern population achieved its highest population index in 1996 to 1997 and its lowest index in 2013 to 2014. The difference is greater than 96% of the size of the wintering population. Given the stochastic nature of wintering monarch populations, probably due to natural environmental variability, estimates of a precise population trend is difficult; however, an approximate population decline over the last 20 years of 80% appears reasonable (Xerces Society 2016). Inamine et al. (2016) estimated the average annual decline to be greater than 9% per year, and Semmens et al. (2016) predicted a 16% to 62% probability that this population will go extinct over the next 20 years, although uncertainty was large because of the dynamic nature of monarch populations.

Figure 3. Annual abundance indices for the eastern monarch population at overwintering sites in Mexico from 1994 until 2018. Figure used with permission courtesy of Monarch Watch. (2018).

Using a moving three to five year mean and standard deviation of the population, it is apparent that monarch populations are highly stochastic (Flockhart et al. 2015). The chief concern for monarchs is that during periods when the monarch’s annual population is small, as is currently the case, uncontrollable environmental factors like weather could cause extinction, e.g., a catastrophic event like a severe winter storm in the area of the wintering colonies or a summer with prolonged,

27 widespread unfavorable weather for breeding or survival. For example, the period of 2012 to 2015 had the three lowest wintering indices on record, which were likely due to three consecutive years of poor spring reproduction because of drought in the United States (2012 to 2014). In March of 2016, an ice storm and colder than normal temperatures in Mexico likely played significant roles in a 27% decline in the 2016 to 2017 total occupied area of the overwintering population as compared to the 2015 to 2016 occupied area (World Wildlife Fund 2017). The key to the monarch’s survival as a species is to increase the average annual population to the point that weather poses less risk of species extinction (Flockhart et al. 2013). 3.5 Potential Threats Monarch populations are undeniably in a precipitous decline. It is virtually certain that there are multiple factors contributing to this decline. The only question is which of these factors poses the greatest threat to the future existence of monarchs. If they are all significant limiting factors, then monarchs are facing a “perfect storm” of circumstances driving them toward extinction. Since an increasing population trend can only be achieved by increasing recruitment, increasing survival, or both, it is prudent to acknowledge the factors that are believed to be contributing to decreased recruitment and/or survival, and then attempt to alleviate the factors that exist in this local region, rather than debating which threat is the most acute. 3.5.1 Deforestation of Overwintering Habitat Despite the designation of the mountains around monarch wintering colonies as a legally protected 138,000 ac (56,000 ha) Butterfly Biosphere Reserve and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, degradation of the oyamel fir forests within the Butterfly Biosphere Reserve continues albeit apparently at a reduced rate. Tree cutting by residents within the reserve to provide domestic fuel for cooking and heating homes and to clear land for farming was thought to be the primary threat to wintering colonies in recent years; however, the attempted commercial harvest of 25 ac (10 ha) of forest in 2015 near several colony sites suggests the deforestation threat is more organized than previously believed (Brower et al. 2016). Illegal logging and a recent outbreak of bark beetles continue to erode the integrity of the oyamel fir forests in which the monarchs overwinter. Many lines of research have demonstrated the importance of maintaining the integrity of the forest canopy for successful overwintering by monarchs (Ramirez et al. 2015 and references cited therein; Calvert and Brower 1981; Anderson and Brower 1996). Forest fragmentation, especially coupled with climate change, may lead to more frequent catastrophic mortality events on the wintering grounds, further imperiling the species. 3.5.2 Loss of Forage Sources Recently, a few researchers have used widespread citizen science databases of monarch abundance to evaluate alternative hypotheses of where in the annual cycle population bottlenecks may be occurring (Davis 2012; Badgett and Davis 2015). Inamine et al. (2016) used North American Butterfly Association data to hypothesize that declining population trends in the south central United States during fall migration were more closely linked to population declines in wintering colonies than were population changes in summer breeding areas. They suggest that a low survival rate during fall migration is the primary factor causing monarch population decline. They did not speculate on a reason for decreased survival. However, one potential reason for low fall migration

28 survival rates is the loss of fall-flowering nectar-producing plants that are critical for migration refueling and building fat reserves to sustain monarchs through the winter. Taylor et al. (2016) were highly critical of analyses used by Davis (2012), Badgett and Davis (2015) and Inamine et al. (2016). Taylor et al. (2016) cited the more stringent analyses and editorial review conducted to test the loss of breeding habitat analysis. Other critics of the fall migration limitation hypothesis point out productivity in agricultural land was not assessed (Pleasants et al. 2016) and that the density of sampling sites in the Midwest (the core of monarch breeding range) was much lower than along the east coast, Great Lakes and south central United States, and this, along with a tendency of volunteer observers to select sites where monarchs are abundant and avoid less attractive habitat where declines are likely occurring first, irreparably biased the data (W. Thogmartin, USGS, personal communication 2015). 3.5.3 Loss of Breeding Habitat Loss of habitat in the summer breeding grounds is the most widely proposed factor contributing to the decline in monarch numbers. In all, approximately 147,000,000 ac (60,000,000 ha) of monarch habitat have been lost since 1992–an area four times the size of the state of Illinois (Monarch Watch 2016). Wright and Wimberly (2013) reported that Iowa lost 376,000 ac (152,000 ha) of grassland (a surrogate for monarch habitat) statewide from 2006 to 2011 due to record high crop prices, based on USDA National Agricultural Statistics Cropland Data imagery. Southwest Iowa had the largest single expanse of recently converted grassland of anywhere in Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota or the Dakotas. The conversion of 7,000,000 ac (2,833,000 ha) of CRP land in the Corn Belt to crops, adds to the total habitat loss. Another 1,276,500 ac (517,000 ha) of CRP in Iowa are scheduled to expire by 2025; however, it is reasonable to assume that many if not all of these acres will be re-enrolled based on past experience. A trend associated with this habitat loss has been the ascension of common milkweed, A. syriaca, as the most abundant and, therefore, most widely used milkweed by monarchs (Brower et al. 2012a; Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012). This loss of milkweed diversity and the heavy reliance on a single milkweed species by breeding monarchs is an artifact of land-use history and the decline of native habitats with more diverse milkweed flora. The loss of monarch habitat in cropland (i.e., common milkweed) due to the adoption of glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans in the last 10 years amounts to at least 75 million ac (30,350,000 ha) (Fernandez-Cornejo et al. 2014). From 1999 onward, milkweed reduction in agricultural fields has coincided with the application of glyphosate herbicides in locations where it has been studied (e.g., corn and soybean fields in Iowa where milkweed abundance had decreased 58%; Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012). In effect, agricultural fields where glyphosate herbicides are being applied no longer serve as monarch breeding habitat because of a lack of milkweed (Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012) (Figure 4). There are many uncertainties related to land conversion and use of genetically engineered crops and the resulting effects on monarch reproduction. While documentation exists of ongoing grassland conversion to cropland in Iowa, reliable estimates of milkweed density and flowering plant density within cropland (prior to use of glyphosate tolerant corn and soybean) are lacking. Current assumptions, now that glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybean are used, are that density of

29 milkweed in cropland approaches zero. Estimates of milkweed and flowering plant densities in conservation grasslands, grass hayland and pasture vary widely, contributing to uncertainties in assessments of the relative impacts of grassland conversion and the use of genetically engineered crops and glyphosate on monarch reproduction.

Figure 4. United States map showing glyphosate use on agricultural lands in 2012. Additional maps can be found on the USGS website.

Contrary to the milkweed limitation hypothesis is the observation that egg densities on milkweed plants may also be decreasing. Several alternative explanations could account for this observation: milkweed availability is not limiting populations; there are now too few monarchs to utilize the available milkweed, perhaps because other limiting factors associated with low populations have now taken over; or the configuration of remnant milkweed stands in a highly fragmented Midwestern landscape is not conducive to monarchs finding the remaining milkweed. Declining recruitment due to habitat loss is not the only concern in breeding areas. Exposure to widespread insecticides may be increasing larval and adult mortality. Bt corn is a genetically engineered cultivar that includes a gene from the DNA of a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (hence Bt). The inserted gene causes the corn to produce a systemic protein that kills the larval form of the European corn borer moth (Ostrinia nubilalis). The results of a

30 series of studies summarized in Sears et al. (2001) indicate that Bt corn pollen from existing varieties of corn would have negligible to no impact on monarchs in habitats near corn. Monarch larvae in existing and newly established milkweed patches near crop fields could also be exposed to insecticides due to spray drift during the cropping season. Insecticides for managing corn and soybean insect pests include organophosphate, pyrethroid, neonicotinoid, and anthranilic diamide insecticides (Hodgson and VanNostrand 2016; University of Tennessee Extension 2016; Dupont 2010). While there do not appear to be published studies designed to systematically monitor insecticide levels on milkweeds following treatment, spray drift models used by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), such as AgDRIFT and AGDISP13, indicate that exposure to monarch larvae through this route of exposure cannot be precluded. Monarch larvae could also be exposed to insecticides through ingestion of milkweed. Corn and soybean are typically planted with neonicotinoid-treated seed (Douglas and Tooker 2015), including 70% of soybean acres in Iowa (Hodgson et al. 2012). Chlorantraniliprole is also entering the market as a corn seed treatment option (Corn and Soybean Digest 2015). Imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam have moved into Iowa streams, presumably due to subsurface flow (Hladik et al. 2014), which raises concerns that plants downslope of the cropped field could absorb neonicotinoids systemically. Several studies (Krupke et al. 2012; Long and Krupke 2016; Botías et al. 2015, 2016; David et al. 2016) showed that a variety of non-crop plants in the margins of fields previously sowed with neonicotinoid-treated seeds can have detectable levels of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam in their pollen and nectar, although the frequency of detection is highly variable. In some cases, it is not clear if detections were a result of dust drift at planting and/or systemic uptake from subsurface water flow. Two studies provide preliminary evidence of the systemic uptake of neonicotinoids in milkweed near crop fields. Paola and Kaplan (2015) did not find clothianidin in the leaves of common milkweed plants located 0 to 160 ft (0 to 50 m) from two corn fields in Indiana, but approximately 15% of the plants at a distance of 160 to 300 ft (50 to 90 m) from the fields had detectable levels (minimum detection level for the HPLC-MS/MS method not provided). While the concentration range of clothianidin in plants with detectable levels was not provided, the maximum concentration of clothianidin present in one plant was 14 ng/g. Using an ELISA method, Pecenka and Lundgren (2015) reported detectable levels of clothianidin in approximately 65% and 35% of common milkweed plant leaves sampled in June and July, respectively, within 4.9 ft (1.5 m) of corn fields in Brookings County, South Dakota. Mean concentrations ranged from 0.4 (June) to 0.69 ng/g (July), with a mean of 1.14 ng/g in plants with detectable levels. In non-crop plants, insecticide concentrations are typically below levels that would cause acute lethality for non-target insect species; however, toxicity data are limited for estimating species- specific risk, especially for non-target lepidopteran species (Botías et al. 2016; Pisa et al. 2014) including monarchs. Two studies provide limited information on the toxicity of two neonicotinoids to the monarch. Pecenka and Lundgren (2015) reported an LC50 of 15.63 ppb to neonates exposed to swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) leaf discs topically treated with an aqueous solution of clothianidin. Effects on developmental time, body length, and head capsule width were observed in

13 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/models-pesticide-risk-assessment#atmospheric

31 some instars, with significant effects at 1 or 5 ppb; however, no significant sublethal effects were observed at the 10 and 25 ppb exposure levels. The inconsistent sublethal responses observed in this study may be a function of the exposure method (leaf dipping) that resulted in variable larval dosimetry. Krischik et al. (2015) assessed the toxicity of imidacloprid to monarch larvae that fed on tropical milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) plants grown in nurseries and greenhouses. Potting soil was treated with 300 mg ai/pot and 600 mg ai/pot. A residue analysis (HPLC-MS/MS) of the flowers from these plants showed 6.03 and 10.4 ppm of imidacloprid, respectively. Foliage concentrations of imidacloprid were not reported. Nenoates were placed on these plants, and mortality was assessed. By day 14, nearly all larvae feeding on both the 300 mg/pot and 600 mg/pot milkweeds were dead (larvae feeding on control plants had approximately 35% mortality). No significant mortality was observed in adult monarchs foraging on flowers of the treated plants. These limited observations underscore how the current lack of information concerning insecticide toxicity (e.g., mortality, growth suppression, or developmental delays) to larval monarchs impedes developing robust risk assessments for insecticide exposure. 3.5.4 Potential Impacts of Increased Milkweed Density on Larval Survival Attempting to increase monarch populations by enhancing a tiny fraction of their original habitat area, such as public land that comprises about 1.5% of the area of Iowa, may lead to proposals to establish artificially high densities of milkweed on these lands. This could result in higher than normal densities of monarch eggs, larvae and pupae, and, in turn, attract elevated populations of monarch predators and parasites. Elevated predator or parasite populations could create habitat patches that produce fewer larvae (De Anda and Oberhauser 2015 and references cited therein), such that the patch recruitment rate may result in a population growth rate (λ) that is less than 1.0. While it is generally accepted that Iowa must have many more milkweed plants for monarch recovery (see Section 4), how the plants should be distribution at local, landscape and state-wide scales are active areas of research (e.g., Grant et al., 2018) . 3.5.4.1 Predators and Parasites Ants, mites, lacewing larvae, spiders (Oberhauser et al. 2015) and beetle larva (Koch et al. 2003) can sometimes be predators of monarch eggs. By providing numerous potential milkweed oviposition opportunities, a low density of eggs on each plant should increase egg survival (Prysby 2004 and references cited therein). Many genera of ants feed on monarch larvae, especially when they are young. Large wasps from the Vespidae family often depend on caterpillars for food. Paper Wasps (Polistes spp.) are notorious for locating and capturing monarch larvae on milkweed plants to feed their young. Several species of flies from the Tachinidae family parasitize larger monarch larvae with two or three eggs. The emerging fly maggots feed as internal parasites. After pupating, the maggots exit the monarch pupa on a silk thread, and they pupate nearby on the ground. Small species of leaf- rolling spiders can be a pest. They sew the edges of a milkweed leaf together with silk to make a nest. They usually come out at night and feed on young monarch larvae. Larger monarch larvae have few spider predators. The assassin bug of the family Reduviidae is known to feed on monarch larvae (Prysby 2004 and references cited therein).

32 Most problems in the pupa stage originate from parasitoids and pathogens the larvae acquire. Occasionally, wasps from the family Braconidae parasitize the pupae. Tiny wasps from the family Chalcididae may successfully penetrate the pupa leaving a small hole. The pupa begins to turn dark and dies. Although it is uncommon, some birds will consume monarch larvae and adults opportunistically (Brower and Calvert 1985, Calvert et al. 1979). These species may be better able to tolerate high levels of the toxins from milkweed that larvae consume. The most common birds that feed on monarchs are some kingbirds (Tyrannus spp.), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). 3.5.4.2 Pathogens Neogregarin (Ophryocystis elektroscirrha) is a protozoan commonly called OE (McLaughlin and Myers 1970). When a larva eats the spores of the protozoan, the parasite remains in an intermediate state until after pupation, and then rapidly infects the tissue that becomes the scales that cover the adult body (Altizer and Oberhauser 1999). The adult carries the protozoa spores externally and transfers them to the surface of its eggs and plants (Altizer and Oberhauser 1999). Monarchs that are heavily infected with OE often die before they mate. The parasites may be fairly benign in the eastern population because most infected individuals would die in migration (Altizer et al. 2004). Baculoviruses are pathogens that attack insects and other arthropods. Many butterfly species, especially monarchs, are infected by the virus nucleopolyhedroviruse, commonly called NPV. The virus is a tiny particle that enters through spiracles (air passages) or is eaten by larvae. The cells of the larvae produce more virus particles until the caterpillar “melts” into a black liquid, and releases more virus particles into the immediate environment to infect other butterfly larvae. One larva may produce billions of virus particles (Save Our Monarchs 2018).

33 4.0 Species Population and Habitat Goals 4.1 Range-wide and Iowa Summary of Population and Habitat Goals In 2015 the United States Government set a goal of increasing the population of overwintering adult monarchs to 225 million by 2020 (USG 2015). Current estimates of new monarch summer breeding habitat needed to reach this goal are expressed as the number of new milkweed stems that need to be established in the North Central states over the next 20 years. These estimates range from 1.3 to 1.6 billion new stems (see Thogmartin et al. 2017a and references cited therein). The Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (MAFWA), which coordinated development of the Mid-America Monarch Conservation Strategy, which includes a goal of 1.3 billion new stems for the northern breeding core area of the monarch (deep purple area illustrated in Figure 5) (MAFWA 2017). Iowa falls entirely within the northern breeding core. Within the context of this multi-state conservation strategy, on November 28, 2017, the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium agreed Iowa should strive to establish 160,000,000 new milkweed stems over the next 20 years, which represents 12.3% of the North Central states’ overall goal of 1.3 billion new stems within the northern breeding core.

Figure 5: Map of monarch distribution. Dark purple area indicates the northern breeding core.

34 During the summer and fall of 2017, a consortium workgroup, with ex officio support from USFWS and USDA staff, developed habitat targets for the following land cover/land-use categories in Iowa: • Urban/suburban • Road rights-of-ways (secondary roads) • State, county and federal land (Public Lands) • USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Program Lands (Other) • Agriculture The consortium met on January 19, 2018, and reached consensus on land cover category-specific targets to reach the Iowa goal of 160,000,000 new milkweed stems (see Table 1; category-specific analyses are provided in Appendix F). The combined, category-specific targets are estimated to establish between approximately 127 to 188 million new stems on approximately 480,000 to 830,000 acres (190,000 to 340,000 ha) by 2038. While targets are presented as milkweed stems and monarch habitat acres, it is assumed establishment of new habitat includes co-establishment of native warm season grasses and forbs, which provide monarch adults with nectar sources from spring through the fall migration, in addition to milkweeds for oviposition and larval development.

Table 1. Estimated range of new acres and milkweed stem targets for monarch habitat establishment in Iowa from 2015 to 2038 by land-use category.

Acres Range Stems* Range Urban/Suburban 39,774 198,870 Urban/Suburban 1,300,000 5,600,000 Public Lands† 144,041 156,674 Public Lands† 28,527,789 31,030,041 Other† 62,749 67,049 Other† 12,549,800 13,409,800 Road Rights-of-Ways 19,000 21,000 Road Rights-of-ways 6,156,000 6,804,000 Agricultural 214,000 387,000 Agricultural 78,000,000 131,000,000 Total 479,564 830,593 Total 126,533,589 187,843,841 * New stems include stems derived from new seeding and subsequent propagation. Biologically reasonable stem densities of 10 to 50, 197 to 199, 200, 200 to 324, and 150 to 600 stems/acre were assumed for Urban/Suburban; Public Lands; Other; Road Rights- of-Ways and Agriculture, respectively. See Appendix F for a summary of category-specific analyses. † These sectors include stems planted since 2015 through USFWS and other public programs. Details of stems planted from 2015 through 2017 appear in the summary of category-specific analyses in Appendix F.

Assumptions underlying these targets include the following: • Organizations, businesses, and landowners have access to technical information (e.g., BMPs) and technical support service providers (e.g., support for habitat site selection, site preparation, planting and maintenance) • Sufficient public/private funding is available to defray costs for establishing and maintaining monarch habitat • Sufficient seed is available for planting • New and existing monarch habitat is properly established and maintained

35 Additional, unique inputs and assumptions were employed in formulating targets for each of the specific land cover categories. These included, but were not limited to, estimates of land cover acres available for habitat establishment, landowner habitat-adoption rates and biologically reasonable milkweed stem densities. These category-specific assumptions are discussed in Appendix F. The combined habitat-category targets bound the Iowa’s goal of 160,000,000 new stems. It is anticipated that additional habitat targets will be established for land-use categories not addressed to date; e.g., Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) highway rights-of-ways, commercial properties, including utility power stations and transmission lines. Addition of these categories will be included in future versions of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy. To the extent the combined, category-specific targets exceed Iowa’s goal of 160,000,000 new stems, this “reserve capacity” will ensure there is sufficient habitat to account for intermittent decreases in habitat establishment rates or unanticipated increases in monarch habitat loss. The reserve capacity also addresses uncertainties in the current analysis. For example, ongoing research and demonstration studies may indicate milkweed-seeding success or milkweed propagation rates were overestimated. To the extent habitat-establishment success or contributions of new habitat from other land-use categories are significantly greater than currently assumed, the consortium reserves the right to reduce the current estimated targets in a manner that maintains an appropriate reserve capacity. In the same manner, if current assumptions are found to over-predict habitat establishment rates to the extent that it is unlikely Iowa can reach a goal of 160,000,000 new stems over the next 20 years, the consortium will consider revising category targets and/or increasing landowner recruitment efforts. 4.2 Designing a Landscape to Conserve the Eastern Monarch Butterfly in Iowa Research is ongoing to inform landscape design approaches. Please refer to section 5.6 Research for more detail. Future versions will elaborate on this issue as research progresses. 4.3 Designing Habitat Patches for the Eastern Monarch Butterfly in Iowa Female monarchs will lay eggs on many different milkweed species. It is recommended to plant several native species to accommodate different growing conditions, weather variation, and to extend the time milkweed is available for both egg laying and larval feeding. Lab research suggested that monarchs lay more eggs when more than one milkweed species is present (Pocius et al. 2018); oviposition patterns are similar in laboratory (Pocius et al. 2018) and field settings (Pocius et al. In Press). Swamp, butterfly, whorled and common milkweed are good options to accommodate these criteria as well as female egg laying preference (Pocius et al. 2018), larval growth and survival (Pocius et al. 2017), and milkweed establishment success (Pocius et al. In Press). Research is ongoing to inform habitat design approaches. Please refer to section 5.6 Research for more detail. Future versions will elaborate on this issue as research progresses.

36 5.0 Species Conservation in Iowa 5.1 Administration Administration and management of the planning and implementation of the strategy will be overseen by an Executive Committee, with specific activities and tasks undertaken by supporting committees and workgroups (see Appendix G). Clear processes for effective administration of the Executive Committee and Technical Committee are necessary to ensure that (1) the strategy can be adapted to reflect substantive new information; (2) procedures and timelines for accomplishment reporting are established and documented; (3) the efforts of the various working groups concentrating on different tasks are coordinated; and (4) member organization leadership is kept aware of the overall effort and understands any needs so that resources can be allocated to important tasks. It is possible that USDA could serve as the facilitator of a programmatic conservation plan as has been done for several other candidate and listed species. These conservation plans involved USDA NRCS and USFWS developing a section 7 conference opinion, which can be converted into a final biological opinion if a candidate species is listed. This conversion provides regulatory assurances by ensuring that plan participants receive incidental take coverage upon or soon after a listing (see NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife website to see species that USFWS has determined not to list because of NRCS-facilitated conservation plans – e.g., sage grouse and New England cottontail). It is important to note that in the USFWS approval of these agreements, USFWS recommended the non-federal landowners that are not eligible to receive support for species conservation with farm bill funds create a CCAA to have assurance of no regulatory surprises in the future. Thus it may be possible for USDA and USFWS to partner with private landowners in establishing the scientific and regulatory analyses that could then be used to create a related programmatic CCAA that could be facilitated by the state to address needs of private, non-agricultural landowners or for those producers or agricultural landowners that do not enroll in farm bill programs. 5.1.1 Executive Committee The Executive Committee is comprised of senior decision-makers from each organization that is contributing to the strategy. The primary roles and responsibilities of the Executive Committee will include setting and approving strategic and tactical goals and objectives; evaluating proposals from the Technical Committee on work plans; formation of workgroups; approving annual progress reports; ensuring financial, in-kind and technical support for implementing the strategy; and maintaining coordination with national and regional organizations addressing monarch conservation. The Executive Committee will meet at least once a year but not more than quarterly. 5.1.2 Technical Committee A Technical Committee, consisting of senior representatives from across all the supporting organizations, will be established. Upon formation of the Technical Committee, several workgroups were formed to address issues concerning adaptive management; data management; information, education and outreach; landowner recruitment; monitoring; and research. Upon concurrence of the Executive Committee, these workgroups will support the Technical Committee. Managers and staff from USDA (NRCS and Farm Service Agency [FSA]) and USFWS will serve as ex officio members of the Executive and Technical Committees. The Technical Committee will

37 be responsible for overseeing the technical planning and execution of the strategy in areas including adaptive management; data management; information, education and outreach; landowner recruitment; monitoring; and research. The Technical Committee will also be responsible for developing yearly work plans and annual reports, which will be based on a logic model to be developed by the Technical Committee, for approval by the Executive Committee. Future versions of the strategy will formalize the by-laws for the Executive and Technical Committees. As noted in Section 3.0 Introduction, the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy will not proceed in isolation of activities underway at the regional and national levels. Strong coordination and collaboration with these other efforts will help ensure efficiency and effectiveness at the state and national levels. Listed below is a summary of regional and national programs in which Iowa organizations are active participants. These organizations are advancing research that will support the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy as well as addressing policy and implementation issues at the national and regional levels, whose resolution will facilitate efficiency in Iowa’s efforts. 5.1.3 Coordination with Regional and National Monarch Conservation Efforts 5.1.3.1 Department of Natural Resources Monarch Conservation Activities

5.1.3.1.1 National Coordination The conservation and recreation division administrator of the Iowa DNR’s Conservation and Recreation Division has liaised with USFWS Agency regional directors as well as State Fish and Game Agency directors from across the county to ensure that monarch conservation plans are as comprehensive as possible and that the plans meet as many of the challenges as possible for better PECE review. Most states are engaging on this issue in the hopes of preventing the need to list this species. The USFWS has been engaging with states to ensure that a state perspective is considered throughout their analysis. Karen Kinkead (Ph.D.), Iowa DNR’s Wildlife Diversity Program Coordinator, is a member of the USFWS monarch Species Status Assessment (SSA) team as well as the Monarch Conservation Science Partnership, which is developing a national monitoring plan.

5.1.3.1.2 Regional Coordination – Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies The conservation and recreation division administrator (Dale Garner, Ph.D.) is a member of the MAFWA Monarch Conservation Strategy’s Board of Directors and serves on the Executive Committee. This group is a representative group of 13 Fish and Wildlife Agencies across the Midwest. On the monarch conservation effort, MAFWA is taking a lead role in coordination and is working with states beyond the Midwest; MAFWA has received two National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grants.

38 With support from the National Wildlife Federation, Pheasants Forever and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), MAFWA instigated regional monarch butterfly conservation planning efforts in 2015. The MAFWA held a monarch butterfly conservation workshop in October of 2015. The workshop, attended by over 70 participants representing state fish and wildlife agencies, state agriculture departments, universities and research institutions and various federal agencies, served as a launch point for region-wide monarch conservation planning efforts. The first grant, awarded in 2015, supports the development of state planning materials and a coordination meeting of the central states, which was held in Texas on January 18 to 20, 2017. The second grant, awarded in 2016, facilitated the development of state plans by hiring a coordinator and technical advisor to work with states, and for the development of a mid-continent monarch conservation strategy, which includes summaries of individual state monarch conservation efforts. This Mid-America Monarch Conservation Strategy has been developed and approved. Iowa’s Monarch Conservation Strategy is incorporated in the Mid-America Monarch Conservation Strategy, which was released in June of 201814. The states have agreed the regional plan should be evaluated by USFWS using the PECE requirements (found in Appendix B).

5.1.3.2 USDA NRCS Monarch EQIP funds were allocated and efforts were made to establish approved monarch conservation practices (USDA NRCS 2015). The NRCS is working in the 10-state, core region, which includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin. The Section 7 Monarch Conference Report15 prepared by NRCS and FSA was finalized in December of 2016. The NRCS/USFWS Monarch Butterfly Partnership convened in early 2016 for the purpose of developing an agreement that would protect and conserve the species and ensure regulatory certainty (i.e., ESA predictability) for private landowners. The ESA predictability is the hallmark of NRCS’ Working Lands for Wildlife initiative, which has successfully pre-empted federal listing of the sage grouse, New England cottontail and other imperiled species. The partnership identified 42 NRCS conservation practices useful for monarch conservation. These practices would be conditioned to ensure reliable protection and conservation benefits to the monarchs. Under an approved conservation plan, landowners would receive a 30-year promise that good deeds would not jeopardize their operations; thus, providing valuable regulatory certainty for agricultural operations. The NRCS Monarch Butterfly Habitat Development Project Screening Criteria Worksheet16 is designed to help prioritize acres for establishing monarch habitat. 5.1.3.3 USDA FSA There is not currently a Section 7 Monarch Conference Report between USFWS and FSA for monarch conservation using CRP conservation practices; however, discussions between the two

14 http://www.mafwa.org 15 https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/pdfs/MonarchConferenceReport2016.pdf

16 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd944808.pdf

39 agencies was anticipated to start by the spring of 2017 (K. McPeek, personal communication 2/1/2017). 5.1.3.4 NC1205- Monarch Conservation This NC120517 project is coordinating regional efforts and communication and collaboration among investigators representing several disciplines and numerous land grant institutions. Coordination is ensuring that efforts build on existing knowledge and eliminate duplication of effort. The projected research will advance existing methods, models and knowledge to (1) establish cost-effective methods to establish and maintain habitat patches that include milkweed, nectar sources, and companion plants that are geographically appropriate and offer season-long benefits for a variety of arthropod species; (2) determine optimal breeding habitat patch characteristics and landscape spatial arrangements to maintain and promote population; (3) develop a model-based decision support system to guide conservation recommendations, understand monarch butterfly behavior and impacts of agricultural productive practices on monarch habitat; (4) establish broad, consistent survey and sampling protocols that can be applied region-wide to evaluate breeding habitat quality, monarch utilization of breeding habitat, and life- stage assessment consistent for region-wide baseline; and (5) determine the socio-economic constraints and opportunity for private landowners, particularly farm landowners and managers, for engaging in conservation practices for maintaining breeding habitat patches at both the individual and community levels. Ultimately, this project will support the development and implementation of state and potentially regional monarch conservation strategies across the spring and summer eastern monarch breeding zones. This approach may also provide a model for other conservation challenges that span large geographic areas and multiple disciplines. Sue Blodgett (Ph.D.), chair of the Departments of Entomology and of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, ISU, also chairs this project, and several ISU faculty members are active participants. 5.1.3.5 Monarch Conservation Science Partnership This USGS- and USFWS–led Monarch Conservation Science Partnership18 is engaged in research to address information gaps associated with the ecology and conservation of monarch butterflies. Among these efforts include analyses of extinction risk, continental-scale full-annual-cycle demography, threats assessments, overwinter density estimation, milkweed target estimation, and storylines for conservation recovery as well as monitoring strategies. The partnership examines numerous issues related to monarch conservation, including approaches to predict changes in adult monarch populations at the national level, based on alternative habitat establishment scenarios, and the development of monarch and milkweed survey designs and protocols to support national, regional, and state monitoring programs. The collaboration includes Karen Kinkead (Ph.D.) from Iowa DNR; Pauline Drobney from the USFWS, Neal Smith Wildlife Refuge; and ISU researchers, including Steve Bradbury (Ph.D.), Tyler Grant (Ph.D.), and John Pleasants (Ph.D.).

17 https://www.nimss.org/projects/18360 18 http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/management/dss/monarch.html

40 5.1.3.6 Keystone Monarch Collaborative Following recent declines in monarch butterfly populations, the Keystone Policy Center brought together a diverse group of committed stakeholders, including scientists, conservationists, farmers, and the private sector, to facilitate collaborative solutions that strengthens monarch populations and habitat. The Keystone Monarch Collaborative19 initial meeting, held in spring of 2015, led to ongoing efforts to develop collaborative strategies to promote and implement actions that will support monarchs in agricultural landscapes. Iowa DNR and ISU are members of the steering committee, and Steven Bradbury (Ph.D.) is serving on the collaborative steering committee. The Keystone effort is addressing national issues, such as habitat seed availability and BMPs for establishing and maintaining habitat, and is addressing federal monarch conservation policy questions with USFWS, USDA and USEPA. Many of the national organizations engaged on the Keystone Collaborative are also represented with their Iowa-based organizations on the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium. This coordination between national and state-based organizations will enhance efficiency in resolving conservation implementation issues that are related to federal policies and programs. 5.1.3.7 Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium is a community-led organization whose mission is to enhance monarch butterfly reproduction and survival in Iowa through collaborative and coordinated efforts of farmers, private citizens and their organizations. The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium is composed of state-based organizations, including ISU, that agree on a common goal to enhance the monarch butterfly’s reproduction across the state by supporting the propagation of breeding habitat through research, education and direct action. The consortium’s research effort will establish a sound scientific foundation for Iowa’s monarch butterfly conservation efforts. The consortium’s extension and outreach program will draw upon all the member organizations to ensure the broad delivery of practical, science-based information on monarch butterfly conservation practices for Iowa’s landscapes. Habitat improvements in rural landscapes is targeting underutilized areas that do not conflict with agricultural production, are sufficient in scale to support improved monarch breeding success and that strive to complement other conservation programs. 5.1.3.8 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies The AFWA represents North America’s fish and wildlife agencies to advance sound, science- based management and conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest. The AFWA is engaged with monarch conservation on behalf of state fish and wildlife agencies. These efforts at AFWA are coordinated by Jonathan Mawdsley (Ph.D.), who is the Fish and Wildlife Science Coordinator at the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 5.1.3.9 Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies The MAFWA is an organization of 13 state and 3 provincial Midwest fish and wildlife agencies (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan, www.mafwa.org). The MAFWA advocates state’s rights in fish and wildlife issues, promotes efficiencies in

19 https://www.keystone.org/our-work/agriculture/monarch-collaborative/

41 government by exchanging research and management information and promotes multi-state, range- wide initiatives to keep species from being listed under the ESA. 5.1.4 Measuring Progress Progress stemming from the strategy will be determined using the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy Logic Model (Figure 6), which tracks inputs, outputs and outcomes over time. Additional modifications and fine tuning of the logic model will be addressed in future versions of the strategy. Inputs. Types of inputs include, but are not limited to, outreach efforts, website coordination, funding, and logistical implementation details. While members, partners, and other organizations will be initiating these efforts, the roles of all Iowans, such as farmers, farm managers, private landowners, public land managers, and urban dwellers will be to make use of meetings, communication efforts, participate in demonstration projects, join the effort to distribute information and resources, and engage actively with the conservation practices endorsed by the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium (see Five Ways to Help the Monarchs text box below). The public will also have access to these resources to utilize and share.

Figure 6. The Iowa Monarch Conservation Logic Model describes the flow between inputs and behavior to outputs and outcomes. It will be further refined in future versions of the strategy based on experiences gained, monitoring, and adaptive management.

5.1.4.1 Human Behaviors Human behaviors will fundamentally influence the success of the strategy. Members, partners, and other organizations will provide information that will help farmers, farm managers, livestock producers, and other private landowners make decisions and will identify markets and options for promotion and execution of meetings and workshops. In the context of publicly owned land, state

42 and agency behavior will also contribute to habitat implementation, while providing visibility of monarch efforts and learning opportunities for agricultural audiences and the public. Surveys will also be distributed, and results will be compiled. Farmers, farm managers, and private landowners will be using conservation messages, making use of farm bill resources, and asking questions. It is essential for local champions to be identified and empowered to encourage peers to participate. The public will be encouraged to learn about conservation efforts, ask questions, and to make use of the five conservation practices (see Five Ways to Help the Monarchs text box below) on their properties or in local areas in their communities. 5.1.4.2 Outputs Conservation outputs demonstrate the successful impact of outreach effects. Members, partners, and other organizations will receive more questions and requests for technical assistance, and messaging and materials will need to be modified to fit changing communication needs. Farmers, farm managers, and private landowners will demonstrate active conservation adoption efforts through an increase in seed mix sales and acres planted with seed mix and expansion of breeding habitat. Other indicators of program success will be additional farmers voluntarily becoming champions or establishing habitat as well as new groups seeking to support installation of habitat. For the public, outputs will include increased monarch breeding habitat in gardens and green spaces. 5.1.4.3 Outcomes The increase in monarch population consistent with state and national goals will demonstrate the successful implementation of the strategy. This overall outcome will be documented by monitoring increases in monarch eggs, larvae, and adults on farms, livestock operations, Iowa public lands, roadsides, rights of ways (transportation and utility) and urban/suburban areas. Cumulatively, these gains will contribute to expansion in over-wintering monarch populations in Mexico (goal of 15 ac [6 ha] by 2020) and an increase in the population of adult monarchs to 225 million by 2020 (USG 2015). Finally, these outcomes will result in recognition of the work of Iowa farmers, farm managers, livestock producers, and landowners to lead efforts to save the monarch butterfly. These efforts will also serve as on-the-ground evidence that farming and conservation can succeed simultaneously. The logic model provides a science-based perspective as to the nature of information that will be generated and interpreted to assess progress in meeting monarch conservation goals. Information needed includes, but is not limited to, evaluation of milkweed and nectar plant habitat placement to support monarch reproduction and survival. In future versions of the strategy, specific sampling designs and metrics to evaluate habitat performance and monarch population responses will be elaborated in concert with surveillance monitoring (see 5.3 Monitoring). In addition, development of the strategy’s data management plan will include maintaining information derived from the future monitoring program (5.2 Data Management). Linking changes in habitat with changes in monarch population status is an area of active research and reflected in section 5.6 Research.

Five Ways to Help the Monarchs

Take advantage of farm bill programs to establish monarch breeding habitat. Increasing the number of milkweeds and nectar-producing plants is vitally important for monarch conservation. These efforts also benefit other pollinators and related wildlife conservation goals. More detail is available at local USDA Service Centers or at nrcs.usda.gov. Establish monarch habitat on your farm as part of a demonstration project. Consider installing habitat as you install bioreactors, grassed waterways or other erosion control practices. Areas near livestock buildings or other unused areas of your farm can also become useful habitat. Find a local conservation expert to help you get started: https://www.nrem.iastate.edu/wildlife/contacts/Wildlife-Habitat- Programs-and-Consultation. Follow federal pesticide labels and state regulations when applying pesticides labeled as toxic to bees to avoid unnecessary exposure to pollinators and monarchs. Adjust spray equipment to reduce drift by using low pressures, large droplets, and low boom heights. Avoid applications when wind speed is above 10 miles per hour or wind direction is toward monarch habitat. More detail is available at epa.gov/pollinator-protection. Use monarch-friendly weed management recommendations for odd areas, roadsides and other rights-of- way (ROWs). Roadsides and ROWs offer opportunities for miles of monarch habitat (nectar and milkweed species). The Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management program at the University of Northern Iowa provides information on maintenance of roadsides using management strategies that reduce mowing and application of herbicides, which supports monarch and pollinator habitat along roadsides. More detail is available at https://tallgrassprairiecenter.org/irvm. Establish a Monarch Waystation, a garden with both nectar plants and milkweeds, where monarchs can find nectar and reproduce. Monarchs lay eggs on milkweeds, the only food monarch caterpillars eat. Adults need flower nectar from spring through fall. More information is available at monarchwatch.org. The Five Ways to Help the Monarchs were developed by the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium.

5.2 Data Management Tracking the conservation of the monarch butterfly in Iowa will depend upon the collection and storage of a large amount of data, which must be shared amongst the many partners of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium. In addition, information collected in Iowa will need to be aligned and incorporated into regional and national conservation reviews as appropriate.

44 Rules and methods of inputting data (to avoid duplication) will be established, as well as rules for information access and dissemination among diverse partners. Data in the following categories will be needed: habitat actions, outreach actions, administrative actions, and habitat and monarch monitoring results. These data will be used to measure progress of the conservation strategy and serve as the basis for adapting the plan. The USFWS has developed a Monarch Conservation Database (MCD) to capture planned and implemented conservation efforts (e.g., planting habitat, restoring habitat, etc.). More information can be found at https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/MCD.html. Part of the database will consist of a map that provides basic information and generalized locations of efforts; this application will be made available to the public. Details of each effort will be restricted to the data provider and collaborators identified by the data provider. The process for managing Iowa’s monarch habitat efforts is being developed. The consortium’s data management workgroup will provide staffing options and associated costs for building and maintaining Iowa’s data to the consortium in the first quarter of 2019. Before the MCD was developed, Iowa’s primary option for storing monarch habitat data was to create a stand-alone database system that included data input and output features. While this is still an option, software development costs would be high. Alternatively, if Iowa uses the MCD to house data, software development costs would be minimal and the remaining effort would be to develop protocols for uploading, downloading and verifying data in the MCD. Data entry costs could be the responsibility of individual consortium member organizations, and a nominal cost would be associated with a central member of the consortium periodically downloading Iowa data for use in progress reports, for example. If the consortium determines it would be more efficient to have data entered into the MCD and managed centrally, overall costs to consortium members may be generally the same, except less costs would be incurred internally. Annual habitat loss will be tracked by the USFWS through a model based on annual land-use change. Potentially, an automated email could be sent to the data provider every few years asking them to confirm the status of the habitat project (e.g., is the habitat still there? are there still milkweed plants?). 5.2.1 Objective 1 – Assemble a Data Management Workgroup This working group should include a professional with extensive data management experience representing at least the following members of the consortium: ISU, a state government agency, a federal government agency, a non-governmental conservation organization, and a non- governmental agricultural organization. This workgroup will be tasked with developing a data management plan to coordinate and oversee the use of the MCD to store, organize, protect and disseminate shared information intended to demonstrate progress of Iowa’s Monarch Conservation Strategy. This workgroup would also identify the resources (e.g., time, funding, hardware and software) necessary to implement data management procedures.

45 5.2.2 Objective 2 – Identify Data Needs Member organizations of the consortium must identify key data needs to measure the effectiveness of the strategy’s implementation and align with the MCD. The MCD stores data on the location, quantity and type of conservation practices being implemented as well as monarch population trend data being collected by the Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program. The Data Management Workgroup, in cooperation with the other workgroups, will identify if other data storage needs are required specific to the state of Iowa, for example the amount, type, and results of any outreach that is being accomplished. How the data from the MCD fits into an adaptive management framework also needs to be identified clearly and specifically. Collaboration concerning data needs will be essential between the Monitoring; Information, Education and Outreach; and Research Workgroups and the Executive Committee. 5.2.3 Objective 3 – Acquire Required Data and Permissions Because the data needs identified in Objective 2 may be sensitive or carry restrictions on how they may be shared, the Data Management Workgroup would need to cooperate with USFWS to arrange for access to Iowa data. Data sharing agreements should be explicit about who may have access, how the data may be used, and how it must be safeguarded. 5.2.4 Objective 4 – Establish Data Management Protocols A database coordinator would support storing, protecting and disseminating all shared Iowa data into the MCD. The coordinator would work with this workgroup to complete the following: • Inform consortium members and partners about the MCD and resources to support its use. Answer beginner-level questions on the database and connect with USFWS to make sure other questions are answered • Create protocols related to data entry, especially to avoid duplication. At what stage should the project be added to the database, and at what milestones will progress be updated in the database? When diverse partners cooperate, one must be tasked with entering the project into the database and listing the others as partners. Who may access the collective Iowa data should be considered • Ensure the database is current and organized (and avoids duplication) • Manage any additional Iowa data collected that is not captured by the MCD as identified during implementation of Objective 2 • Develop data summary and analysis methods, which will best inform periodic reviews of the overall strategy 5.2.5 Objective 5 – Establish Data Sharing Protocols The workgroup would establish a clear and specific data-sharing policy that will address the following: • Data requests from individuals and organizations external to the consortium and its established partnerships; • Data requests from members and partners of the consortium that are in addition to the established summaries and analyses;

46 • Data dissemination and technical assistance to parties responsible for habitat establishment and land management, including staff within conservation organizations as well as private landowners. This step will be done in cooperation with the consortium’s Information, Education and Outreach Workgroup. 5.3 Monitoring At least two types of data collection will be needed to understand the progress being made on reaching habitat goals and the effects of habitat efforts on the species: (1) tracking habitat efforts regarding acres improved and management techniques used, and (2) assessing the biological status of the habitat (stems and species of milkweed along with diversity and abundance of flowering nectar sources) and monarchs (eggs, larvae, and adults). 5.3.1 Tracking Habitat Efforts The USFWS has developed the MCD, which tracks two categories: (1) plans, such as this one, and (2) efforts at delivering habitat improvements for the monarch butterfly. A designated representative of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium, consortium member organizations or private Iowa landowners could enter habitat improvement or management projects and answer questions in this database, which will allow the USFWS to determine whether Iowa’s actions meet the criteria for PECE (see Appendix B for more information). For example, the USFWS will be able to quantify the number of acres improved in each sector (such as agriculture, rights-of-ways [ROW], urban/suburban and public lands), and use these acres to compute an estimated number of stems of available milkweed. More information on the MCD can be found at https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/MCD.html. 5.3.2 Biological Data Collection A regional plan for biological data collection (e.g., immature and adult monarchs, milkweed and nectar plants) is being planned as part of the MAFWA conservation strategy (see Section 5.3.3.7 Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program). Execution of this monitoring plan will provide information to assess progress in the Midwest. Monitoring to track biological responses in Iowa itself would require a significant amount of resources. A decision as to whether or not an Iowa- specific monitoring plan should be developed will be determined after the regional plan has been implemented and associated resource requirements are more fully documented. 5.3.3 Established Monitoring Efforts There are several monitoring programs already established that Iowans can support or join. It is important to utilize similar protocols to the greatest extent possible so that data can be compared and compiled to make regional or national inferences. Several biological monitoring programs are described next. 5.3.3.1 Monarch Watch Citizen scientists tag monarchs for Monarch Watch20. The purpose of tagging is to associate the location of capture with the point of recovery for each butterfly. The data from these recoveries are used to determine the pathways taken by fall migrating monarchs, the influence of weather on the fall migration, and the survival rate of the monarchs. Tags contain unique codes (three letters and

20 www.monarchwatch.org.

47 three numbers), and each year receives its own unique code series. Many questions remain unanswered about the fall migration of the monarch population east of the Rocky Mountains. What pathways do monarchs use each year and do the pathways vary among years? How is the migration influenced by weather? Data collected under this program could assist in answering these questions. Because monarchs have a certain appeal and a fascinating biology, this project is also a good way to introduce students to science and allow them to contribute to a scientific study. More information, including how to order tags, can be found on the Monarch Watch website. 5.3.3.2 North American Butterfly Association Three of the main goals of North American Butterfly Association’s Butterfly Count Program21 are to (1) gather data that will monitor butterfly populations, (2) give people a chance to socialize and have fun, and (3) raise public awareness by hosting events that will increase general interest in butterflies. A minimum of four observers and six party-hours best meets these three goals. Because some long-running existing counts do not meet the new guidelines, the four observer/six party- hour requirement is strongly suggested (but not required) for all count circles that were established prior to 2009 and is required for counts established in 2009 or later. 5.3.3.3 Iowa Butterfly Survey Network The Iowa Butterfly Survey Network22 is located at Reiman Gardens, in Ames, Iowa, with the ultimate goal of educating Iowans about butterflies, while at the same time encouraging people to take an active role in conservation. To that end, the survey network conducts research using volunteer citizen scientists of all skill levels to collect data for yearly population surveys of butterfly species in the state of Iowa. Volunteers are trained in survey techniques specifically developed for butterflies. Of the 122 species of butterflies believed to live in Iowa, more than one fourth are listed as endangered, threatened, or of “special concern,” making their long-term survival questionable in the state. The survey network uses both citizen scientists and conservation professionals to monitor and survey habitat areas for butterfly populations. Survey network data provides baseline information for researchers on existing populations and their ranges, identifies potential threats as well as beneficial or potentially harmful land management practices, demonstrates effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts, and provides an annual snapshot of the health of all butterfly populations in Iowa. 5.3.3.4 Journey North Citizen scientists report monarch sightings to Journey North23 as monarchs migrate to and from Mexico. Reported sightings include the first sightings in the spring for adult monarchs, eggs, larvae, and milkweed, as well as peak migration and overnight roosts in the fall. Additional sightings throughout the year can also be reported. These data can be used to track the spring and fall migrations and the timing of the life stages of monarchs, including variability among years.

21 http://www.naba.org/butter_counts.html 22 https://www.reimangardens.com/collections/insects/iowa-butterfly-survey-network/ 23 https://www.learner.org/jnorth/monarchs

48 5.3.3.5 Monarch Larva Monitoring Project Citizen scientists collect data on milkweed density, monarch eggs and larvae, and other optional activities, such as larval monarch survival as part of the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project24. Milkweed density is collected annually during the middle of the growing season by counting all milkweed plants at a site or estimating density by counting plants within arbitrarily located plots. To estimate immature monarch density, participants visit sites weekly and record the number of milkweed plants, monarch eggs, and different instar stages. Larval monarch survival is recorded by collecting and individually rearing larvae from monitoring sites, including sending parasitoids to the Monarch Lab at the University of Minnesota. The data are used to evaluate the distribution and abundance of immature monarchs and milkweed, as well as survival and parasitism rates, and have contributed to numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications. 5.3.3.6 Project Monarch Health Citizen scientists sample adult monarchs for Ophryocystis elektroscirrha (OE), a protozoan parasite that negatively impacts the health of monarch butterflies and can reduce their life span or flight abilities. Participants catch adult butterflies and/or rear caterpillars to adulthood and test for OE by pressing clear tape or a sticker against the ventral side of the monarch’s abdomen. Butterflies are then released, and samples are sent to Project Monarch Health25 at the University of Georgia for processing. Data are used to study how the prevalence of OE varies across seasons, years, and geographic locations and have contributed to numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications. More information, including how to request an OE sampling kit, can be found on the project website. 5.3.3.7 Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program The Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program is a national initiative to monitor monarch butterflies and evaluate habitats to inform monarch conservation efforts throughout their breeding and migratory range. This program was designed by scientists from government agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations within the Monarch Conservation Science Partnership (MCSP). This monitoring program relies on participation by natural resource managers, biologists, and citizen scientists to monitor monarch habitat using standardized protocols. The program has the following primary objectives: • To provide geographically and ecologically representative information to update population and habitat models • To track long-term changes in the distribution and abundance of monarch butterflies and their habitats • To acquire and share information about how habitat conservation actions affect monarch butterflies and their habitat

24 http://www.mlmp.org 25 http://www.monarchparasites.org

49 The monitoring program uses a spatially balanced, randomized sampling scheme to provide data from across the country and among land-use types (e.g., public grassland, agriculture, rights-of- way). The program protocols detail collecting field data on immature and adult monarchs, milkweed and nectar plants, and red imported fire ants (a predator present in the southern regions), with an additional activity of captive rearing field-collected larvae to estimate the incidence of parasitism and disease. Through this program, each state will have locations within each of the sectors that may be monitored for nectar plant diversity and milkweed stem numbers, and ideally, monarch eggs and larvae on milkweed stems. Many volunteers may want to also monitor adult butterflies. Protocols for each of these components (habitat, eggs/larvae, and adults) can be found on the Monarch Joint Venture website26. These data could be collected by paid employees or given the public’s engagement with monarchs, could be collected by volunteer citizen scientists. 5.3.3.8 Mexico Lastly, Mexico has monitoring programs established within the Mexico Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, and there are additional programs specific to the Western United States. These include the Xerces Western Monarch Butterfly Count27 and the Southwest Monarch Study28. 5.4 Landowner Recruitment To effectively conserve the monarch butterfly, voluntary efforts to create and manage habitat on privately owned land will be essential due to the limited area of public land in Iowa (approximately 3%). The consortium will work with conservation agencies to utilize outreach tools, propose conservation practices, and address any conflicts between other conservation practices or crop or livestock production guidelines. To engage with landowners, the consortium will encourage establishment of monarch habitat on private lands, encourage participation in science-based demonstrations and socioeconomic analyses, and create additional awareness by celebrating landowner role models who act as monarch champions. There are many ways to recruit landowners, including formal activities by the consortium infrastructure in addition to partner organizations and institutions promoting and providing technical assistance to landowners interested in voluntary conservation. Developing this network for outreach and assistance to landowners will lead to increased engagement and measurable outcomes, including the establishment of new monarch habitat on private lands in Iowa. Currently there are a number of consortium organizations (USDA, IDALS, Pheasants Forever, Iowa DNR, USFWS, and others) working to (1) educate landowners on the economic benefits of establishing and maintaining habitat on their private lands and (2) assist landowners in establishing habitat on private lands, which includes completing the applicable enrollment and contracting procedures. However, increasing the amount of and awareness of technical resources for landowners in Iowa is an opportunity that can be addressed by the consortium to accelerate and achieve landowner recruitment goals.

26 https://monarchjointventure.org/get-involved/mcsp-monitoring 27 https://www.westernmonarchcount.org 28 https://www.swmonarchs.org

50 5.4.1 Estimated Need for Voluntary Conservation Here, the need for purposeful and voluntary participation in land-management programs is discussed. Refer to Section 4.1 for range-wide and Iowa summary of the monarch population and habitat goals. The “best areas” for managing monarch habitat are still being determined through research, as discussed in Section 5.6. While management opportunities on conservation and recreation lands may reduce the anticipated need for voluntary management on private land, Iowa does not have a sufficient amount of public land to meet the need for monarch production, and not all is suitable for conversion to monarch habitat (e.g., forest). Roughly 600,000 ac (200,000 ha) of conservation and recreation land exists with many of these already available as “good” monarch habitat. As discussed in Section 5.8 (Accomplishments) and in Section 4.1 (Iowa goals), there are ongoing multiple efforts related to monarch habitat establishment on public lands. Strong interest in the CRP from Iowa farmers resulted in signed commitments to enroll more than 220,865.81 ac (89,381.3 ha) into USDA FSA’s continuous CRP CP42 pollinator habitat program (Curt Goettsch, USDA FSA, Personal Communication, August 6, 2018). This program helps farmers establish high-quality native wildflowers, legumes and shrubs that support pollinators. On CP42, as with all CRP, mid-contract management is a requirement. In Iowa, CRP contract participants have the following options: disking, disking and interseeding, burning, burning and interseeding, interseeding only and spraying. Interseeding with milkweed is an approved option for mid-contract management seeding plans (Curt Goettsch, USDA FSA, Personal Communication, February 16, 2017). Mid-contract management is an important practice to enhance the wildlife habitat value of the enrolled acres by encouraging a diverse mix of plant species, particularly high quality native forbs. An increase in the amount and diversity of flowering plants in the CRP area will improve its value for a variety of pollinators (USDA NRCS 2018). There are at least ten different programs available to Iowa farmers and landowners to help establish habitat (USDA programs include EQIP, Conservation Stewardship Program [CSP], Conservation Innovation Grants [CIG], Agricultural Conservation Easement Program [ACEP], CRP, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program [CREP] and Regional Conservation Partners Program [RCPP]; Iowa DNR has the Private Lands Program and is involved in the Prairie Partners Program, and USFWS has Partners for Fish & Wildlife Program). These programs can provide technical assistance to landowners; some may also have resources to help defray habitat establishment costs. To evaluate the effectiveness and ability of habitat on private lands to meet milkweed stem goals, existing habitat on such sites must be assessed, recognizing that because not all areas have sustainable habitat, habitat management in some locations will be needed. The need to educate landowners regarding habitat management on both public and private lands will be extremely important. A future landowner management guide will be developed to complement the BMPs in Section 5.5. Voluntary participation of landowners will be needed to reach the monarch conservation goals for Iowa. Also, local circumstances and reserve-design issues, such as connecting habitat patches, will clearly call for conservationists to enlist many private landowners in the conservation effort.

51 Recruiting landowners is costly and time-consuming, but by utilizing targeted outreach through meetings, field days, and online content, this goal is achievable. 5.4.2 Objective 1: Convene Landowner Recruitment Workgroup The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium has established a recruitment workgroup to operate under the administrative framework. The workgroup is working to coordinate efforts to make monarch conservation successful, such as developing outreach tools (5 Ways to Help the Monarchs card, Monarch Seed Mix High Diversity handout, Iowamonarchs.info website), increasing awareness of financial and educational opportunities in each county, and creating a new Monarch Champions Program. For the champions program, many consortium partners have identified at least five landowners to highlight in news articles or social media (Figure 7). These landowners will be used as examples, or champions, to discuss their experiences establishing habitat on their land. Additionally, the workgroup will adopt, revise, and share BMPs. The workgroup, in consultation with the Technical Committee, should work with different agencies to approach owners of lands that are highly suited to habitat management benefiting monarchs in a consistent manner. To date, conservationists have made steady progress in signing up landowners willing to create pollinator habitat, but such efforts require considerable time and resources. The cost of time spent developing personal relationships with landowners, providing education and outreach materials about monarchs, and negotiating habitat projects is considerable and can be a key limiting factor. The workgroup could assist this effort by collaborating with organizations that currently provide direct conservation technical assistance to landowners and by identifying opportunities to further leverage their impact. Examples might be coordinated outreach materials and events to ensure a consistent message and a broader audience. Mailings, websites, telephone calls, and field days are potential tools for contacting and enlisting landowners. 5.4.3 Objective 2: Develop and Deliver Incentives Conservationists must continue to develop and deliver incentives to attract private landowners to participate in the conservation effort. Incentives are commonly in the form of financial assistance programs designed to help offset some of the costs landowners would incur as they establish monarch habitat on their property. Increasing awareness of existing financial assistance programs and identifying opportunities to develop new incentive programs should be a priority for the landowner recruitment workgroup and the consortium overall. Delivering the milkweed stem goal for Iowa will require a suite of appropriately funded, financial assistance programs available to private landowners. Other incentives may include regulatory assurances, such as CCAAs, which let private landowners continue to use their land and gain income from it while voluntarily creating habitat for monarchs. These CCAAs provide legal guarantees that no additional regulatory burdens will be placed on cooperating landowners should the monarch butterfly formally be listed as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA. Other incentive examples include the NFWF grant opportunity IDALS (in association with Pathfinders RC&D) offered landowners through targeted conservation programs (refer to Section 5.8.3.2) and the NFWF grant awarded to INHF to provide habitat on public lands and permanently protected private lands within the I-35 Corridor and Loess Hills Corridor (refer to Section 5.8.3.4).

Figure 7. Monarch Habitat Champions.

5.4.4 Objective 3: Conduct Site Assessments Landowners will benefit from a voluntary site assessment by a conservation professional prior to initiating a monarch habitat project. This will aid in evaluating the existing habitat quality and ultimately determine if management activities alone will suffice to provide adequate habitat for monarchs or if the existing vegetation needs to be destroyed and upgraded to new habitat. For example, staff are available to help guide the establishment process. Members of Pheasants Forever, USDA, Iowa DNR Private Lands Program, the Prairie Partners Program (Iowa Native Seed Growers Association, the Iowa Chapter of Pheasants Forever and the Iowa DNR), USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, Conservation Districts of Iowa and County Conservation Boards are willing to recommend methods for establishing productive monarch habitat. With landowner approval, these professional conservationists are willing to perform a site visit to help answer questions and observe conditions unique to that site. Note: to make use of certain farm bill programs (e.g., NRCS EQIP or CSP, or FSA CRP), a site visit from NRCS conservation planners is necessary to conduct a land evaluation, the outcome of which provides the basis of a plan that meets or exceeds the client’s objectives, while also meeting the agency’s program requirements. For ideas regarding agricultural BMPs for habitat, refer to Section 5.5.1. A site visit is also a critically important step in identifying landowners’ objectives and informs the development of effective management plans to fulfill those objectives. This goal also encompasses encouraging landowners to participate in science-based demonstrations and socioeconomic

53 analyses regarding the developed habitat. Conservation professionals will only access private property with landowner consent. 5.4.5 Objective 4: Draft Applications, Preliminary Plans, and Cost Estimates Private landowners must be aware that conservation professionals are available to help them in planning specific habitat work, estimating costs, assisting in the identification of potential financial assistance programs, and drafting applications to programs that help landowners pay for creating and managing habitat on their lands. It is unlikely that landowners will implement monarch habitat projects without understanding all of the associated steps and estimated costs. 5.4.6 Objective 5: Draft and Review Land Management Eligibility Criteria To ensure that farm bill and other private land-management resources are directed to projects that maximize benefit to monarchs, conservationists should develop criteria for “best areas” on private lands (ongoing research, discussed in Section 5.6). Program eligibility criteria may preempt the award of some funding thereby necessitating the need to find alternative funds through other programs. Recommendations on revision of rules directing eligibility should be collected and submitted through appropriate channels. 5.4.7 Objective 6: Manage Parcel Information and Landowner Status Decision-support tools and monarch data will be used to identify key areas and track efforts to recruit landowners willing to manage those tracts (this objective overlaps with data management efforts). Additionally, a management guide (in association with BMPs) will be developed for landowners. Landowners will be encouraged to participate in annual (periodic) site visits by agencies and consent of entry to land parcels for research purposes. As it is established, habitat will be added to the USFWS MCD (see strategy section 5.2 Data Management). 5.5 Best Management Practices for Habitat by Sector The BMPs summarized in this section provide an overview of how land can be managed to support conservation efforts for the monarch butterfly. The BMPs provided are for sectors that have specific habitat goals: agricultural lands; urban/suburban; road rights of ways (secondary roads) and state, county, and federal lands (public lands) (Section 4.0). The BMPs for each sector provide stand-alone information. Resources with additional information concerning BMPs are also provided in Appendix H. 5.5.1 BMPs for Agricultural Lands 5.5.1.1 Introduction An overview of BMPs for establishing and maintaining monarch habitat in agricultural settings is summarized below. Resources with additional detail for proper implementation of the BMPs are provided within this summary, and a quick list is available in Appendix H. To get technical assistance and learn about potential opportunities for financial support, private landowners interested in establishing habitat should contact local organizations including, but not limited to USDA NRCS, USDA FSA, USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Iowa DNR Private Lands Program, Prairie Partners Program, IDALS, Conservation Districts of Iowa, Iowa Pheasants

54 Forever or local County Conservation Boards. Also, this Wildlife Habitat Program map provides a list of contacts for many of these programs and is organized by county. The BMPs summarized below address site selection, site preparation, seed mix development, planting, post-planting management. Recommended planting sites are focused on grass-dominated land (e.g., modification of exiting or planting new Conservation Reserve Program tracts on marginal acres). Note that planting soybeans or corn into a grass-dominated site for one or two seasons can be part of the site preparation process that provides some income while the weed seed bank is reduced. Site preparation strategies differ depending on the site’s original groundcover: non-native cool season grasses (e.g., smooth bromegrass) or warm season native grasses (i.e., older conservation plantings). A BMP for pest management is also provided. Private landowners potentially eligible for farm bill assistance (e.g., CRP or EQIP) are strongly recommended to contact their county USDA Service Center for site-specific monarch habitat conservation practices. Additionally, private landowners who wish to improve acres that are currently enrolled in a conservation program should contact that program’s administrating agency for guidance in how to proceed. 5.5.1.2 Site Selection Three major factors should be considered during site selection, which in turn informs the appropriate suite of site preparation techniques (see Section 5.5.1.3): (1) existing vegetation, (2) weed potential (weed seed bank and weed root stock), and (3) site history, including land use and vegetation. The goal of site preparation is complete eradication of the existing vegetation and thorough depletion of the weed seed bank and weed root stock. While it may be difficult to determine the weed potential or history of a site, insights on these factors inform site preparation and increase future success. The NRCS has developed a Plant Community Query tool that assists private landowners with identifying what their historical plant community might have been. Potential sites for establishing new habitat or enhancing grass-dominated areas include, but are not limited to, CRP or EQIP–eligible land, field borders, land cover associated with bioreactors and saturated buffers.

5.5.1.2.1 Non-native cool season grass A non-native cool season grass stand (e.g., smooth bromegrass) or fallow pasture is a perennial system with minimal disturbance and will require intensive site preparation. Lack of disturbance such as herbicides, tillage, and harvest allow the weed seed bank to grow unchecked and encourages establishment of highly competitive perennial/biennial weeds. When the dominant vegetation is suppressed (i.e., the non-native cool season grass is sprayed with herbicides), the weed seed bank and dormant weed root stock flushes. Many of the weeds that flush are highly competitive perennial weeds. Additionally, many of the non-native cool season grasses have the ability to reestablish from seed or dormant root stock if herbicides are only applied one or two times. It should be noted that sites dominated by reed canary grass are extremely difficult to convert to monarch habitat due to the time and effort required to eradicate this species. Transitioning from a non-native, low management perennial system (such as CRP in smooth brome) to a native perennial system will require multiple herbicide applications over two

55 consecutive growing seasons to kill the non-native vegetation and to deplete the weed seed bank and weed root stock. Transitions from a non-native cool season grassland are rarely successful if weakening of the existing cool season grass occurs in only a single growing season. If a large planting is planned, breaking up the area into smaller establishment areas can be helpful to prevent the area from being unmanageable. An alternative approach is to grow herbicide tolerant soybeans/corn in a grass-dominated site for one or two years. This practice will significantly depress the existing weed seed bank prior to planting native plant seeds. Any remaining weeds will likely be annuals that will not survive in the perennial system of a restored prairie with less effort and cost as compared to the other agriculture BMPs described previously. One important consideration in using a corn/soybean transition is careful selection of herbicides to minimize the residual/carryover effects. New native habitat plantings can be detrimentally affected if the site is not managed in light of herbicide residual periods (see Table 2).

Table 2. Example herbicides and the number of months needed before planting pollinator/monarch habitat after the last herbicide application.*

Herbicide Residual Time Anthem 18 months Authority Assist 30 months Callisto 18 months Dicamba 4 months Dual II Magnum 12 months Extreme 40 months FirstRate 18 months Flexstar GT 3.5 18 months Glyphosate 0 months Hornet WDG 26 months Impact 18 months Liberty 280 SL 6 months OpTill or OpTill PRO 40 months Outlook 4 months Princep 4L 18+ months Pursuit 40 months Starane Flex 12 months Stinger 18 months Surestart 26 months * This herbicide summary is incomplete and does not contain all of the pre and post emergent herbicides that will have a negative impact on the establishment of pollinator habitat. Source: Herbicide rotation restrictions in forage and cover cropping systems (University of Wisconsin Extension 2018).

56 5.5.1.2.2 Native, warm season grass A site dominated by native, warm season grasses may not provide adequate nectar or breeding habitat for the monarch. However, these sites can be good candidates for interseeding with native forbs to provide productive monarch habitat with proper management of the grasses prior to and following planting.

5.5.1.2.3 Existing herbicide-tolerant corn/soybean crop Years of tillage and/or herbicides deplete the weed seed bank and create a low competition environment. Whether marginal land is converted or a site is planted with crops for a year or two during the transition phase, converting an herbicide-tolerant crop area to monarch habitat is the easiest and most economical transition. According to the Species Population and Habitat Goals (Section 4.0), 22,400 ac (8,900 ha) of Iowa marginal land needs to be converted to monarch habitat. 5.5.1.3 Site Preparation Site preparation is the most important step to ensure successful habitat establishment. Patience and taking the time to remove all existing vegetation is crucial. Note that a site that is not in crop production could be planted with crops for a couple years to allow profit and excellent site preparation prior to planting. Pheasants Forever has a resource for site preparation here.

5.5.1.3.1 Non-native cool season grassland Transitioning from a non-native, low management perennial system (such as CRP in smooth brome) to a native perennial system requires significant effort across multiple growing seasons to kill the non-native vegetation and to deplete the weed seed bank and weed root stock. The soil in a grassland (or low management lawn) contains a multitude of dormant/viable weed seed and weed roots, which are simply “waiting” for suppression of the dominant vegetation or a change in the growing environment. As soon as the dominant vegetation is suppressed, the next most dominant weeds establish. All non-native cool season grasses should be eradicated before establishing monarch habitat. In almost all situations, this means multiple seasons of herbicide applications are necessary (see suggested options below). Non-native cool season grasses are most susceptible to herbicide applications in early to mid-fall after mowing (or equivalent activity such as haying or grazing) in late summer. Consider avoiding areas dominated by certain cool season grasses for monarch habitat projects. Quackgrass and reed canary grass are two such examples of highly persistent grasses that require multiple seasons of herbicides to control. Quackgrass mostly spreads via aggressive rhizomes, while reed canary grass is a prolific seed producer with seed that survives in the soil for three or more years. Reed canary grass will likely re-establish from seed even if herbicides are applied for two to three years. Smooth bromegrass control with a single fall herbicide application is effective at temporarily weakening smooth bromegrass in most situations but is highly variable and never

57 results in eradication. Grass-selective herbicides can provide temporary suppression of non-native cool season grasses but do not appear to be able to control these grasses. If a site contains native forbs and non-native grasses, the site should be mowed in the summer, and glyphosate should be applied in the fall after native plants have senesced. A grass-selective herbicide could also be utilized at any point during the growing season but will result in lower grass suppression than glyphosate. Applications of grass-selective herbicides and/or glyphosate post prairie plant senescence will likely need to be repeated for multiple seasons to provide sufficient suppression of non-native cool season grasses. A reference called, “Planting Native Prairie into Cool Season Sod” can be found here. Option 1. Mow, spray, crop. Note: This method is not allowed if site is enrolled in a farm bill program. Mow late summer (mid-August), bale if desired and apply glyphosate one or two times in the fall on regrowth as needed. Crop the site for three seasons with herbicide tolerant crops. Utilize a soybean, corn, soybean rotation and plant in the dormant season following soybean harvest. Follow recommendations above and pay attention to residual herbicide periods (see Table 2). Option 2. Mow, bale, spray, spray, spray Mow late summer (mid-August), bale if possible and apply glyphosate one or two times in the fall on regrowth as needed. • Spring planting - Apply glyphosate once to regrowth the following spring. Wait at least one week and then follow planting recommendations for spring. • Dormant planting – Apply glyphosate three times the following spring, summer, and fall. Plant monarch habitat seed mix in dormant season (Nov. 15 to March 31). This option is preferred. Option 3. Burn, spray, spray, spray Prescribed burn in dormant season. Apply glyphosate three times: the following spring, summer, and fall. Plant monarch habitat seed mix in dormant season after final glyphosate application. Option 4. Soybean food plot transition for CRP. Mow after August 1, apply glyphosate once in the fall, apply burn down herbicide the following spring, plant no-till soybean food plot for one or two years; apply post emergence herbicide in late spring, plant monarch habitat seed mix in dormant season. Option 5. Plant herbicide tolerant soybean or soybean/corn rotation into the grass dominated site for one to three years. Keeping in mind potential herbicide residual effects (see Table 2), planting into soybean or corn stubble is relatively straightforward:

58 Soybean stubble: The site is ready for dormant planting. If planting will be in spring, consider delaying until there has been a flush of annual or perennial weeds and treat with a chemical burndown of glyphosate only. Wait a week, and then plant by no-till drill or broadcast and cultipack. Corn stubble: If the site will benefit from residue removal, this could be accomplished by (1) chopping and baling corn stover, (2) burning off corn stover or (3) conventional chop/tillage combo as if planting beans in spring. Tillage will result in more weed germination. The site is ready for dormant planting. If planting will be in spring, consider delaying until there has been a flush of annual or perennial weeds and treat with a chemical burn down of glyphosate only. Wait a week and then plant by no-till drill or broadcast and cultipack. Once a site has been converted to soybean/corn for one to two years, the remaining steps in this practice are comparable to steps used to convert marginal, unproductive cropland to monarch habitat. 5.5.1.3.2 Native, warm season grass Site preparation includes prescribed fire, baling, or disking followed by one to two applications of a broad spectrum herbicide pre-plant. Option 1. Burn, spray, plant Prescribed burn in fall or spring season. Apply glyphosate (or grass-selective herbicide if some desirable forbs are present) to regrowth the next spring and summer. Plant diverse forb mix in the dormant season. Option 2. Remove vegetation, spray, plant Remove actively growing vegetation in late summer (mid-August) through haying, grazing, or mowing. Apply glyphosate (or grass-selective herbicide if some desirable forbs are present) to regrowth. Plant diverse forb mix in the dormant season. Note: haying warm season grasses would benefit from a higher cutting height. Haying in late summer will reduce the growth of warm season grasses the following year. The difference between Option 1 and Option 2 reflects the extent of warm season grass suppression required in a site.

5.5.1.3.3 Existing herbicide-tolerant corn/soybean crop in marginal crop land See Option 5 under 5.5.1.3.1. 5.5.1.4 What to Plant: Seed Mix Development A diverse seed mix with native grasses, a mixture of forbs that bloom throughout the spring, summer and fall, and milkweed seeds at a rate of at least 12,000 seeds per acre is needed (consistent with the Section 4.0 and Appendix F of the strategy). The seed mix should contain no more than 50% grasses as measured by seeds/ft2. The CRP pollinator program requires the grass component of a mix to occupy 25% or less of the mix as measured by seeds/ft2. Note: certain grass

59 species can be aggressive even though the species are native; e.g., big bluestem, Indian grass, and switch grass. In most situations, habitat projects that attempt to recreate the historical vegetative community will be the most successful because those native plants are adapted to that particular soil type, slope, aspect, and hydrology. After using the NRCS Plant Community Query tool to identify what the site’s historical plant community might have been, consider the NRCS native seed mixes, many of which are specifically designed for those historical plant communities. Information on seed mixes appropriate for different soil types and climatic conditions can be obtained from ISU (https://store.extension.iastate.edu/Product/Monarch-Seed-Mix-High- Diversity), Pheasants Forever (http://www.iowapf.net/native-seed-program), and the NRCS Native Seed Calculator (see Appendix H for details to access). If possible, use local ecotype seeds and collect bids from multiple seed vendors. The seed should be certified to be free of noxious and invasive weeds. Individuals can visit their local USDA Service Center to get information about their specific property and potential projects, including soil information. Interseeding is also an option and typically results in a reduced seeding rate. The USDA technical documents for Iowa do not have seeding rate recommendations for practices like interseeding, which require less than 40 seeds/ft2. Additional information will be added in future versions of the strategy when available. 5.5.1.5 Planting If the site-specific management schedule permits, planting during the dormant season (November 15 to March 31) is recommended to optimize germination of forbs, which require periods of cold, moist conditions. Resources on specific germination recommendations and length of stratification periods for most native plant species are available from Prairie Moon Nursery29 and the Tallgrass Prairie Center30. A spring planting is preferable to a fall planting if a site was only sprayed in the fall but the existing vegetation has not been eradicated and the weed seed bank/weed root stock is high. A better method would be to spray in the fall, then spray in spring, summer, and fall the following growing season, with a dormant seeding following. Iowa CRP does allow seeding to occur from November 15 to July 1 for native species according to this USDA Conservation Cover job sheet31. Mid to late spring planting will favor grasses over forbs, but inadequate site preparation is the most common cause of poor native plant establishment so thorough site preparation is of greater importance than planting timing. Summer through early fall planting dates are strongly discouraged due to insufficient rainfall and low soil moisture. A number of planting methods are acceptable, including drilling with a no-till prairie drill, broadcasting and seeding by hand. Regardless of the planting method, it is critical that site preparation steps have ensured good seed to soil contact and removal of existing vegetation. Seeds should be planted no deeper than 1/4 to 1/8 inches.

29 https://www.prairiemoon.com/PDF/Prairie-Moon-Nursery_2018_Catalog-and-Cultural-Guide_for-web.pdf https://www.prairiemoon.com/blog/resources-and-information 30 https://tallgrassprairiecenter.org/sites/default/files/techguide3_propagating_2015.pdf 31 https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/IA/Conservation_Cover_327_JS_2017_05.pdf

60 5.5.1.6 Post-Planting Management After planting, the site should be mowed a minimum of three times in the first growing season and potentially one or two times in the second growing season (see USDA Iowa Native Prairie Planting Guides). Mowing should occur whenever vegetation is “knee-high.” Mow at a height of 8 in (20 cm) in the first growing season. If mowing is necessary in the second growing season, mow at a height of 12 in (30 cm). Mowing lower than the recommended height can damage the desirable native plants. Mowing must be executed on a regular basis, and the vegetation must not be allowed to grow taller than knee high in the first growing season. Mowing tall, thick weeds will greatly decrease native plant establishment due to residue accumulation, which mulches or smothers the establishing seedlings. Sites are generally considered established by the end of their second year. However, it is recommended to scout the site periodically, at least once a year for subsequent years. Spot herbicide treatment of an appropriately selective herbicide for the weed species or spot mowing may be required to combat weed pressure in certain areas. Note: caution is recommended with any non-selective herbicide treatment as desirable native grasses and forbs will also be killed. During years three to five, one prescribed burn should be employed. If burning is not possible, then mowing and baling is recommended. Note that monarchs often lay eggs near the top of milkweed so mowing can separate eggs or caterpillars from remaining milkweed. To reduce the risk, mow before May 1 or after October 1. Monarch Joint Venture provides mowing instructions along with timing suggestions32. Disturbance (baling or burning) every three to five years is required to maintain and increase forb and milkweed density and to limit grass dominance. When possible, it is best to disturb only a portion of a habitat at a time to allow wildlife to find shelter in the remaining habitat. This is especially useful in larger plantings. See the NRCS document called, “Best Practices for Monarch Butterfly33.” 5.5.1.7 Pest Management in Neighboring Crop Fields To minimize potential exposure of monarch habitat to herbicides or insecticides, follow federal pesticide labels and state regulations when applying pesticides labeled as toxic to bees to avoid unnecessary exposure to pollinators and monarchs. Adjust spray equipment to reduce drift by using low pressures, large droplets, and low boom heights. Avoid applications when wind speed is above 10 mi hr-1 (16 km hr-1) or wind direction is toward monarch habitat. More detail is available at epa.gov/pollinator-protection. 5.5.2 BMPs for Urban/Suburban Groups 5.5.2.1 Monarch Biology and Ecology 5.5.2.1.1 Status Monarch populations have declined by around 80% over the last 20 years. They are a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Iowa and at the national level are being considered for listing under the ESA. Concern about the monarch is driven by the butterfly’s role as a pollinator, its amazing 2,000 mile (3,000 km) yearly migration and the fact that its decline is perhaps an indicator that

32 https://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/MowingForMonarchs.pdf 33 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ia/programs/financial/eqip/nrcseprd889463

61 other pollinators are in trouble as well. Developing habitat for the monarch butterfly will also support many other beneficial insects that humans need. 5.5.2.1.2 Appearance Adult male and female monarchs can be distinguished by the nodular gland males have on the upper hindwing that females lack (Figure 8). The look-a-like viceroy (middle pic) can be distinguished from the monarch by the black line cutting across its hindwing. Monarch caterpillars have antennae-like structures on both the front and back end and are yellow, black and white striped.

Figure 8. Monarch Identification. Adult monarchs (A) are often confused with the viceroy (B). Monarch caterpillars (C) also have warning coloration with yellow, white and black stripes.

5.5.2.1.3 Monarch Life Cycle and Habitat Requirements Monarchs are a migratory species and spend the months of September through mid-May either traveling or overwintering in Central Mexico. Monarchs breed in Iowa from mid-May through August and also migrate south through the state during September and early October. As a caterpillar, monarchs must have a species of milkweed (Asclepias sp.) to feed on. Iowa has several species of native milkweed, and the most common are in Table 3. As an adult, monarchs need a large variety of flowers to feed on for nectar. They are particularly attracted to red, purple and yellow flowers.

Table 3. Iowa’s most common milkweed species and their suitability for an urban garden.

Common Name Scientific Name Good for Urban/Suburban?

Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Less Suitable

Butterfly Milkweed Asclepias tuberosa Suitable

Swamp/Red/Rose Milkweed Asclepias incarnata Suitable

Whorled Milkweed Asclepias verticillata Suitable

Sullivant’s Milkweed Asclepias suillivantii Less Suitable

62 5.5.2.2 Creating Monarch Habitat in Urban and Suburban Areas Monarchs are adapted to habitats of all sizes, shapes, and locations as long as the area has a good supply of milkweed and other nectar producing plants. Urban and suburban spaces work very well for monarch habitat. Look for spaces where a pollinator garden can be added. Shady, wet, problem areas can be used as well as ideal, sunny areas. Creating monarch habitat will also benefit many other species of pollinators as well. 5.5.2.2.1 What to Plant • Milkweeds: Swamp/rose/red milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), butterfly milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa) and whorled milkweed (Asclepias verticillata) are best for urban/suburban areas (Figure 9). They do not aggressively spread and are smaller in stature than the more widespread common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). They each have a very different look to provide options in a more formal flower garden. Planting a mix of milkweed species encourages females to lay eggs. Plant as many as space allows, with 30 or more plants being ideal whether they are in one spot or spread out around the yard.

Figure 9. Milkweed species: (A) Swamp/rose/red milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), (B) butterfly milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa) and (C) whorled milkweed (Asclepias verticillata).

• Native Flowering Plants: Plants native to Iowa, including milkweed and other prairie or open woodland wild flowers, are a great choice for the urban-suburban monarch garden. Native flowers are well adapted to our climate, precipitation and soil types. Additionally, most native plants are perennial and self-seeding, so this garden will come back year after year. Challenges to be aware of with native plants are that they can be harder to find and will require more planning and potentially a longer time window to begin looking their best. Examples of recommended species for an urban garden are included at the end of this section. • Non-Native Flowering Plants: There are a number of non-native plants that are also good nectar sources for butterflies and pollinators. They will likely be more readily available to find at local greenhouses, and many of the annuals can be especially beneficial to fill in

63 gaps for the two to three years native plants can take to develop. Also pay attention to whether the plants have been treated with pesticides, which may end up being harmful for BUYING MILKWEED AND monarchs and other pollinators. OTHER NATIVE PLANTS • Flowers with a Wide Array of Blooming Times: Monarchs migrate north into Iowa around mid-May, and they make their challenging 2,000 mile (3,000 km) • Planning! Purchasing native migration through Iowa in September. Growing flowers that plants will require some provide nectar throughout this period is very important, and planning as they are not often it takes careful plant selection to choose species that bloom available at local nurseries. in late May/early June and species that bloom throughout Plan to order from an online September. retailer quite early • Plants suited to the Conditions of the Planting Space: A (December-January). sunny spot will be the most ideal location for installing • The Plant Iowa Native website monarch habitat, but partial shade is okay too, and any type has a database of native seed of soil moisture or quality can be used. Do research on and plug dealers as well as which plants will do best in the available space so money is native habitat service not wasted. Some suggested plant lists for different providers. • situations are available at the end of the document. Another strategy is to visit local farmer’s markets, master • Ideal Planting Mix: In a medium to small space or one that gardener plant sales in the needs to be formal, it is best to concentrate on a short list of spring as these will often have plant species. A good rule of thumb is try to include three a few native plants for sale. early blooming plant species, three summer blooming plant • Check in with the local County species and three late summer/fall blooming plant species. Conservation Board for local Add milkweed to this list or include it as one or two of the native plant source summer blooming species. Milkweed is a preferred nectar possibilities. source as well as the host plant for the monarch caterpillar. Also consider adding a species or two of short bunch grasses as well to provide habitat for some other butterfly and pollinator species. Planning for a maximum of 10 to12 species keeps the site manageable; smaller spaces can cut the list down even further. Gaps can be filled with some common annuals if desired. • Seeds or Plugs: With native plants, choosing to use seed or plugs depends on budget, the size of the planting area and whether the style of the site is manicured or more natural (i.e., messy). Seed is less expensive but will result in a more natural (and messier) look and is most appropriate for larger areas. Seed will also take two to three years, at least, for the plants to mature. Plugs are best for a smaller space, will mature and bloom faster and can be arranged to have a more manicured loo. 5.5.2.2.2 What NOT to Plant • Invasive Species: Avoid planting invasive, non-native plant species, which could cause problems in the landscape and could also escape the garden into natural areas. A good

64 place to start for a list of invasive plants is the Iowa Noxious Weeds list34. More information can be found on the DNR website. Finally, check the city code for weed ordinances to know what can or can’t be planted in city limits. • Wildflower Mixes: When buying a wildflower seed mix, make sure it lists what species are included in the mix and whether those species are native or appropriate for this area. • Plants Treated with Pesticides: Plants grown for sale are often treated with pesticides to help them thrive in a greenhouse. Ideally, avoid these plants; most will harm caterpillars that feed off them, for example. The effects should wear off after a year (or sooner). To avoid treated plants, buy from a local business that grew its own plants and ask about treatment methods. Find native plant options with this list of these native plant vendors35 or check this list from the Blank Park Zoo36. • Lawn: Turfgrass provides no value for monarchs or other pollinators. Consider taking some area out of lawn rather than planting more to it. • Things that are not allowed in a city’s ordinances: It’s important to do some research on what is and is not allowed in the city or neighborhood, which may have ordinances against certain plants or plant heights. 5.5.2.2.3 Site Selection A variety of locations are suitable for creating monarch habitat, but one thing all will have in common is that they should be at least partly sunny. Other things to consider:

• Size: An area at least 10 x 10 ft2 (100 ft2; 9 m2) of any shape is ideal for creating monarch habitat, though this space does not need to be all in one place. Consider planting several small areas if one larger area is not possible. Research suggests that having many small milkweed patches may be more beneficial for monarch’s foraging. If a 100 ft2 area is not available, planting smaller spaces should still benefit monarchs and many pollinators. • Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods have the opportunity of creating larger landscapes of habitat for monarchs and other pollinators with some planning. Imagine a monarch’s eye view, when considering the configuration of habitat throughout the neighborhood. Corridors of habitat (in ditches, along trails or other rights of way) are a great way to increase the amount of habitat and connect smaller patches across the landscape. • Pollination: Plant monarch habitat within 500 ft (200 m) of any vegetables or fruit plants that benefit from pollination. • Water Quality: Design monarch habitat to do double-duty. Urban areas lack habitat but also have large amounts of stormwater runoff contributing to decreased water quality, stream bank erosion, and flooding in extreme rain events. Native flowering plants that provide valuable habitat and foraging for monarchs can also be used to prevent soil erosion and reduce stormwater runoff. Native prairie plants are ideal for monarch and pollinator

34 https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IC/LINC/Section.317.1a.pdf 35 http://www.plantiowanative.com/resources/#services 36 https://www.blankparkzoo.com/conservation/plantgrowfly/create-your-garden/sources-for-seeds-and-plants/

65 habitat and have deep roots that help improve our soils while storing and slowing down stormwater. These plants are essential in urban conservation practices, such as native landscaping, rain gardens, bioretention cells, stormwater wetlands, among others, to reduce stormwater runoff. Urban practices can be incorporated into a variety of urban settings, such as residential homes, parks, businesses, parking lots, and more. Learn more about using plantings to help water quality from the local Soil and Water Conservation District; Rainscaping Iowa or Clean Water Iowa. o Funding resources for Water Quality Projects: . Check with local soil & water conservation districts . REAP Grants37 . Check if the city has a cost-share program for stormwater management for residents . Contact the Iowa Urban Conservation Program team to learn more about available funding38

5.5.2.3 Maintaining and Managing Monarch Habitat 5.5.2.3.1 Lawn/Turf Management • Reducing the amount of lawn and converting to monarch-friendly habitat is the best thing to be done! • Avoid using pesticides (herbicide, insecticide, fungicide) or use sparingly and in a targeted manner, following the package directions exactly. • Allow “weeds” to be a part of the lawn – dandelions and clover, for example, are good sources of nectar. • If pesticides must be applied, first remove any flowers on plants to be sprayed or mow areas to be treated, therefore reducing the number of nectar seekers nearby. 5.5.2.3.2 Mowing • Larger habitats: When managing a larger area that was converted to prairie using a seed mix, mowing two to three times per summer will be essential for the first two years to keep weeds in check and to help the prairie plants get established. Once established, periodic mowing (every two to three years) may be the most acceptable form of management (as opposed to prescribed burning) in an urban/suburban setting. Mow only 1/3 of the habitat in a year, and try to time the mowing to be before monarchs arrive (May 1), between June 30 and July 10 and after September. Please note that mowing in the middle of summer will disrupt birds nesting in the planting. For more information on mowing for monarchs, visit the Monarch Joint Venture’s fact sheet39.

37 http://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/REAP/REAP-Grants 38 https://www.iowaagriculture.gov/FieldServices/urbanConservation.asp 39 https://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/MowingForMonarchs.pdf

66 • Smaller habitats: Mow lawn less frequently to allow “weeds,” such as dandelion and clover to bloom. Keep ditches un-mowed or mow infrequently. Ditches can be planted to a mix of grasses and flowering plants, which provide good habitat and help with erosion and water quality. With both of the above suggestions, be sure to check local ordinances. Mowing should not be needed in smaller or more formal pollinator garden plots, but if it is, follow the date guidelines above. 5.5.2.3.3 Burning • A controlled burn is a useful tool for managing larger areas with more natural, native habitat, including ditches planted to native habitat, but check with city/town ordinances to know what is allowed. Burning helps control woody plant invasion and encourages flowering plants. • Burning should be done in spring (before May 1) or fall (after October 1). To support other pollinators, it is best to only burn 1/3 of the area in a year. Also, avoid burning the area too frequently; an interval of three to five years between burning a particular area is usually sufficient. Refer to the Best Practices for Monarch Butterfly document on this page. 5.5.2.3.4 Avoid Using Pesticides • Remember that eaten leaves are often a sign of success when supporting butterflies! • If insecticides, herbicides or fungicides must be used, use them in as targeted a manner as possible (avoid broadcast spraying) and follow the package directions exactly. • Good Neighbor is a program from the University of Northern Iowa that provides great information on managing lawns in a pollinator friendly way: https://goodneighboriowa.org. 5.5.2.4 Educate and Spread the Word Good monarch habitat does not always look like what many people are used to seeing in an urban or suburban setting so it can cause a negative or puzzled reaction. As more people adopt pollinator- friendly lawn practices or put in native gardens, it will become more accepted. Until then, help foster a friendlier atmosphere for monarchs, pollinators and their habitat: • Post a descriptive sign. There are several programs that can provide signs, and Iowa has its own program in the form of the Blank Park Zoo led partnership of Plant.Grow.Fly. Registering the garden with a program like this also helps track how much habitat is being created, which is important for monarch recovery efforts. • Encourage neighborhood associations and city councils to adopt more monarch and pollinator-friendly rules and ordinances. One thing to be done at the city level is to approach the mayor’s office about signing National Wildlife Federation’s Mayor’s Monarch Pledge. • Become a Citizen Scientist. There are a number of programs that provide opportunities for anyone to contribute to the scientific knowledge about monarchs and pollinators. In Iowa there is the Iowa Butterfly Survey Network coordinated by Reiman Gardens at Iowa State University. The Monarch Joint Venture also has a list of opportunities and coordinates a monarch-specific survey network.

67 • What about rearing monarchs? In general, raising monarchs is not recommended. There are a number of challenges, and it is a large time and labor investment. Since habitat is needed to help the species recover, adding habitat will have a larger benefit over a longer period of time. Rearing monarchs can easily fail and risks the introduction of disease into the wild population. The Monarch Joint Venture “Rearing Monarchs: Why or Why Not?” document includes more detail. Buying monarchs (as larvae or adults) and releasing them is also strongly discouraged. Concentrate on creating habitat, and enjoy watching or perhaps tagging the wild monarchs that come into the habitat. 5.5.2.5 Plant Lists and Example Gardens Guidelines: 1. Mostly sunny spot though partial shade is okay 2. Match up soil moisture with plant preference (see Table 4). 3. Decide on style: natural/messy versus neat and formal 4. Planting clumps or drifts of the same species together is nice to look at and may help with foraging by pollinators.

Prairie Strip: Milkweeds: Whorled Milkweed, Butterfly Weed Early: Golden Alexander, Prairie Phlox Middle: Purple Coneflower, Virginia Mountain Mint Late: Blazingstars, Goldenrods Grass: Little Bluestem, Indian grass Medium to Large Rectangle/Block (>100 feet2): Milkweeds: Butterfly Milkweed, Swamp Milkweed, Whorled Milkweed Early: Large-Flowered Beardtongue, Hoary Puccoon, Lead Plant Middle: Purple Coneflower, Ironweed, Compass Plant Late: New England Aster, Rigid Goldenrod, Blazing stars Grass: Big Bluestem, Indian grass Medium to Large Broken Up Milkweeds: Butterfly Milkweed, Swamp Milkweed Early: Large-Flowered Beardtongue, Hoary Puccoon, Prairie Phlox Middle: Purple Coneflower, Ironweed, Rattlesnake Master

68 Late: New England Aster, Rigid Goldenrod, Blazing stars Grass: Big Bluestem, Indian grass Small Milkweeds: Butterfly Milkweed, Whorled Milkweed Early: Prairie Smoke, Prairie Violets Middle: Purple Prairie Clover, Prairie Onion, Marigolds Late: Bottle Gentian, Rigid Goldenrod Grass: June Grass Wet-soil Garden Milkweeds: Swamp Milkweed, Common Milkweed Early: Large-Flowered Beardtongue, Golden Alexander, Prairie Phlox Middle: Joe Pye Weed, Ironweed, Virginia Mountain Mint Late: Great Blue Lobelia, Goldenrod, Blazing stars Grass: Prairie Cordgrass

69 Table 4. Native plants for monarchs and other pollinators and plants to use in the home garden (ISU has a recommended seed mix for larger areas). Pink = Milkweeds, Light Blue = Spring or Early Summer Bloomers, Medium Blue = Middle Summer Bloomers, Dark Blue = Late summer and Fall Bloomers, Green = Grasses.

Common Name Latin Name Habitat Blooming Dominant NOTES Period Flower Color Common Asclepias Well-drained June/July Pale Pink Milkweeds are good nectar providers Milkweed syriaca soil, disturbed as well! Common MW can be an areas aggressive spreader.

Swamp Asclepias Moist soils, July/August Bright Pink Milkweed incarnata wetter areas Whorled Asclepias Dry to moist July/August White Relatively short in stature if space is Milkweed verticillata soil, prairie, limited. open areas Butterfly Asclepias Well-drained Mid-June/July Orangey-red Relatively short in stature if space is Weed tuberosa soil, prairie limited.

Golden Zizia aurea Prairie Early Yellow Alexanders Prairie Phlox Phlox pilosa Prairie, open Early Purple/Pink Butterflies tend to be especially woods drawn to purple flowers!

Hoary and Blue Verbena stricta, Open areas, Early to late Deep Vervain V. hastata forest edges, purple/Blue disturbed areas Wild Garlic Allium Open Sunny Early White canadense Prairie Large-flowered Penstemon Dry to well- May-June Pale Pink Another species, Foxglove Beardtongue grandiflorus drained soil beardtongue (P. digitalis) blooms later.

Prairie Violet Viola pedata or Dry to well- May Purple Very low growing. Good ground cover pedatifida drained soil or edging.

Hoary Puccoon Lithospermum Dry to well- April-May Golden canescens drained soil Yellow Prairie Smoke Geum triflorum Dry to wet soil April-June Pink and Red

New Jersey Tea Ceanothus Dry to well- Early to Late White Low growing shrub americanus drained soil Lead Plant Amorpha Dry to well- May to July Purple Low growing shrub canescens drained soil + White or Red Trifolium sp. Well-drained soil May to June White/Purple Non-native, Perennial Clover + Cosmos Cosmos Well-drained soil June to frost Many Non-native, Annual bipinnatus Pale Purple Echinacea Dry to well- June-July Pale Can spread Coneflower pallida drained soil Purple/Pink Rattlesnake Eryngium Dry to well- June-July White/Green Very unique foliage and flower, can Master yuccifolium drained soil get taller (4 feet)

Prairie Onion Allium stellatum Dry to well- July-August Pink-Purple drained soil

70 Common Name Latin Name Habitat Blooming Dominant NOTES Period Flower Color + Marigold Tagetes sp. Well-drained soil June to Frost Orange- Non-native, Annual Yellow Virginia Mountain Pycanthemum Dry to Wet June-July White Mint virginianum Well-drained soil Compass Plant Silphium Wet to Dry Soil June Through Yellow Very tall (8 feet) and takes a few lacinatum August years to bloom. Cool foliage. Super long roots!

Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium Wet to Well- June through Pink Can get very tall - 5+ feet. maculatum drained soil August Ironweed Vernonia Wet to Well- July-September Purple Tall (5-6 feet) fasciculate drained soil Native Thistles Cirsium discolor Prairies, open July-August Pale Purple There are many invasive thistles so (Field and Tall) and C. disturbed sites there may be ordinances against altissimum planting them! Goldfinches love them too!

Purple Prairie Petalostemum Dry to Well- July-August Purple Clover purpureum drained Soil Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchum Dry to Well- Late May to July Purple Despite its name this is not a grass. campestre drained Soil Very short and fine leaved. Good ground cover.

Wild Rose Rosa blanda or Dry to well- June-July Pink Shrub. State Flower of Iowa arkansana drained Soil Wild Indigo Baptisia Dry to Well- June- July White Shrubs. B. leucophaea is low growing leucophaea or drained Soil and B. leucantha is taller and more leucantha upright (3-5 feet).

+ Zinnias Zinnia elegans Well-drained July – Frost Many Non-native, Annual Soil Great Blue Lobelia Wet to Well- July – Blue Lobelia siphilitica drained Soil September Bottle Gentian Gentiana Wet to well- August- Blue Bumblebees love andrewsii drained Soil September Blazing Stars All Liatris spp. Dry to Well- August- Bright Deep Needs to be surrounded by other (particularly but especially drained Soil September Purple plants to stay upright. Rough) Liatris aspera and L. pycnostachya. L. ligulistylis Goldenrods, Rigid Solidago rigida Prairies, August-October Yellow or Showy or speciosa disturbed areas Asters All Aster spp. Dry to Well- September- Purple, (New England, but especially A. drained Soil October White, Blue Frost and Smooth novae-angliae, Blue) pilosus, laevis Showy Helianthus Dry to Well- August-October Yellow Tall (7+ feet) Sunflowers laetiflorus drained Soil

71 Common Name Latin Name Habitat Blooming Dominant NOTES Period Flower Color June Grass Koeleria cristata Dry to Well- Early NA Grass drained soil Prairie Dropseed Sporobolous Dry to Well- Middle NA Grass heterolepis drained Soil Little Bluestem Andropogon Dry to Well- Middle NA Grass – Host plant for Skipper scoparium drained Soil Butterflies

Sideoats Grama Bouteloua Dry to Well- Middle NA Grass – Host Plant for Skipper curtipendula drained Soil Butterflies

Big Bluestem Andropogon Dry to Wet Soil Late NA Grass - TALL gerardi Indian Grass Sorghastrum Dry to Wet Soil Late NA Grass - TALL nutans Prairie Cordgrass Spartina Wet Soil Middle NA Grass - TALL pectinate

= Needed by monarch butterflies

+ = Non-native species to Iowa

5.5.2.6 Urban/Suburban References and Other Resources Fischer, S.J., E.H. Williams, L.P. Brower, and P.A. Palmiotto. 2015. Enhancing Monarch butterfly reproduction by mowing fields of common milkweed. American Midland Naturalist 173(2):229- 240. Flockhart, D.T.T., J. Pichancourt, D.R. Norris and T.G. Martin. 2015. Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding season habitat loss drives population declines of Monarch butterflies. Journal of Animal Ecology 84: 155-165. Frankie, G.W., R.W. Thorp, M. Schindler, J. Hernandez, B. Ertter, and M. Rizzardi. 2005. Ecological patterns of bees and their host ornamental flowers in two northern California cities. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 227-246. Locke, C., E. Meils, and M. Murray. 2016. The Wisconsin Pollinator Protection Plan. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. https://datcp.wi.gov/Documents/PPPComplete.pdf. Lowenstein, D.M., K.C. Matteson, I. Xiao, A.M. Silva, and E.S. Minor. 2014. Humans, bees, and pollination services in the city: The case of Chicago, IL (USA). Biodiversity and conservation 23(11):2857-2874. Miller, N.G., L.I. Wassenaar, K.A. Hobson and D. R. Norris. 2012. Migratory connectivity of the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus): Patterns of spring re-colonization in Eastern North America. PLoS ONE 7(3): e31891. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2013. Insect Pollinator Best Management Practices for Minnesota Yards and Gardens.

72 Pleasants, J.M., and K.S. Oberhauser. 2012. Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on Monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6:135- 144. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/inline-files/pollinatoryardbmps.pdf. Grant, T.J., H.R. Parry, M.P. Zalucki, and S.P. Bradbury. 2018. Predicting monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) movement and egg-laying with a spatially-explicit agent-based model: The role of monarch perceptual range and spatial memory. Ecological Modelling 374: 37-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.02.011. Wassenaar, L.I., and K.A. Hobson. 1998. Natal origins of migratory monarch butterflies at wintering colonies in Mexico: New isotopic evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:15436-15439. Williams, D.W., L.L. Jackson, and D.D. Smith. 2007. Effects of frequent mowing on survival and persistence of forbs seeded into a species-poor grassland. Restoration Ecology 50:24-33. Zalucki, M.P., H.R. Parry, and J.M. Zalucki. 2016. Movement and egg laying in monarchs: To move or not to move, that is the equation. Austral Ecology 41:154-167. Zalucki, M.P., and J.H. Lammers, 2010. Dispersal and egg shortfall in monarch butterflies: What happens when the matrix is cleaned up? Ecological Entomology 35:84-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01160.x. 5.5.3 BMPs for State, County, Federal and NGO lands

5.5.3.1 Monarch Biology and Ecology 5.5.3.1.1 Status Monarch populations have declined by around 80% over the last 20 years. They are a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Iowa and being considered for listing under the federal ESA. 5.5.3.1.2 Appearance Adults have large bright orange wings with prominent black veining and a black margin with white spots. Males have a nodular gland that is apparent on the upper hindwing. The viceroy is the only species the monarch can be confused with, and unlike the viceroy, the monarch does not have a black line cutting across the hindwing (Figure 10). The wingspan of monarchs ranges from 3.5 to 3.9 in (9 to 10 cm). Monarch caterpillars are also very distinctive with yellow, black and white banding and antenna-like structures on both the front and back ends.

Figure 10. Monarch Identification: (A) adult monarchs are often confused with the (B) viceroy. (C) Monarch caterpillars also have warning coloration with yellow, white and black stripes.

5.5.3.1.3 Monarch Life Cycle and Habitat Requirements Monarchs are a migratory species and spend the months of September through mid-May either traveling or overwintering in Central Mexico. Monarchs breed in Iowa from mid-May through August and also migrate south through the state during September and early October. As a caterpillar, monarchs must feed on a species of milkweed (Asclepias sp.). Iowa has several species of native milkweed, and the most common are in Table 5.

Table 5. Iowa’s most common milkweed species.

Common Name Scientific Name

Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca

Butterfly Milkweed Asclepias tuberosa

Swamp/Red/Rose Milkweed Asclepias incarnata

Whorled Milkweed Asclepias verticillata

Sullivant’s Milkweed Asclepias suillivantii

As an adult, monarchs need a large variety of flowers to feed on for nectar. They are particularly attracted to red, purple and yellow flowers. Otherwise they are habitat generalists, preferring sunny open habitat but having few other requirements.

5.5.3.2 Creating Monarch Habitat in Public Areas The primary management objectives are to maximize: (1) the amount and diversity of milkweeds available and (2) the amount and diversity of nectar resources available from May through September.

74 The Big 6 – Easy and Effective Things Everyone Can Do for Monarchs 1) Support the presence of milkweeds – Don’t mow or otherwise remove. Do include milkweed seed in new prairie reconstruction plantings and interseed in existing reconstructions where they are lacking. 2) Enhance the diversity of flowering plants that provide nectar in prairies and open woodlands through management and seeding if it is a reconstructed habitat. Emphasize species that provide nectar in late August and September. 3) Look for smaller “waste spaces” and rights-of-way linear habitats that could be planted with a diverse mix of forbs, including milkweed. 4) Avoid use of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) and use in as targeted a manner when necessary, following label directions carefully and avoiding drift. 5) Encourage neighbors of public lands to adopt monarch-friendly practices. 6) Spread the word – There is a lot of interest in this insect! Be prepared to pass along accurate information to the public about monarchs and what is needed for their conservation. Encourage the establishment of monarch habitat on private land.

5.5.3.2.1 Determining Appropriate Sites • Publicly owned natural areas have a variety of priorities and objectives, and these guidelines are meant to be integrated with those when appropriate and are not meant to overrule them. It will not be appropriate to manage everywhere and at all times with monarchs as the sole priority, but there are many actions that can be taken for monarchs that do not conflict with an area’s current management and objectives. These guidelines are meant to encourage managers to incorporate monarch conservation into their management plan and provide the information they need to do so. • Below is a list of items to consider in deciding whether a given property or portion of a property is a good fit for managing for monarch butterflies: o Monarch breeding and migratory habitat occurs statewide. o Except for specializing on milkweeds, monarchs are fairly generalists in their habitat preferences. They occur in high quality prairies and other grasslands, but also in agricultural fields, roadsides, urban and suburban areas, around lakes and marshes, and in moderately wooded areas. o Periodic ground or vegetation disturbance can be beneficial for the monarch and its host plants - a high quality prairie remnant isn’t required for monarch habitat. o All public land managers should consider enhancing or adding habitat for monarchs as there are likely opportunities on all public land—wildlife areas, parks, public forests, fish hatcheries, refuges and even the area around field offices and other government-owned buildings. Any habitat designed for monarchs will also benefit pollinators and many other native insects. 5.5.3.2.2 Landscape-Level Considerations and Strategies • Look for opportunities to connect areas with nectar resources, particularly on a north-south gradient, to help provide continuous food resources during migration. Habitat along linear

75 areas (along roadsides, utility right of ways, trails, waterways) will work as connecting habitat for monarchs, so consider adding habitat in these areas. • Prioritize working with private landowners adjacent to protected conservation land, encouraging them to plant pollinator habitat and to restrict their use of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, especially in areas directly adjacent to conservation land. 5.5.3.2.2.1 Plant Composition • Incorporate native milkweeds into seed mixes when establishing new prairie. Milkweed density of 200 stems per acre range is recommended and was used to set milkweed stem goals for the state. • Manage established prairie in a way that supports milkweed propagation. As a rule, most milkweeds do well with disturbance, such as mowing, burning, and disking, but the intensity of these disturbances should be balanced with what is beneficial for the butterfly and other species of concern. Some resources for prairie reconstruction techniques are listed in Appendix H, and the local DNR wildlife management unit biologist as well as many other prairie specialists will be good resources for questions and advice. • Incorporate a diversity of native milkweed species with different bloom times, because monarchs prefer to oviposit on blooming, vigorous milkweed plants. All milkweed species also provide an excellent source of nectar while in bloom. Research at Iowa State University suggested that caterpillars that fed on prairie milkweed (Asclepias sullivantii) and tall green milkweed (Asclepias hirtella) had lower survival than that found in seven other species of milkweed, which are listed in Table 6. Therefore, managers should prioritize planting the milkweed species listed in the table (within historic range and habitat). The milkweed species native to Iowa are included in Appendix D. Most are generally less common or very restricted in their range. Monarchs can eat all species of Asclepias sp. • Ensure that all open areas have a good proportion of nectar-producing flowering species blooming from May through September. Nectar plants that bloom later in the season (August/September) are particularly important. Here are some important native nectar plants in order of blooming time (Table 7).

76 Table 6. The best milkweed species to add to public lands in Iowa are native and support monarch caterpillar development and survival.

Common Name Latin Name Habitat Blooming Period IA Distribution

Common Milkweed Asclepias Well-drained soil, June/July Statewide syriaca disturbed areas Swamp Milkweed Asclepias Moist soils, wetter July/August Statewide incarnata areas Whorled Milkweed Asclepias Dry to moist soil, July/August Statewide verticillata prairie, open areas Butterfly Weed Asclepias Well-drained soil, Mid-June/July Statewide tuberosa prairie Showy Milkweed* Asclepias Moist soils, near Mid-June/mid- Statewide speciosa water July Poke Milkweed Asclepias Forest margins, July/August Statewide exaltata savanna Honeyvine Cynanchum Forest margins, July/August Southern half laeve disturbed areas * Threatened Species in Iowa.

77 Table 7. Nectar plant species listed in order of blooms.

Common Name Latin Name Habitat Blooming Period IA Distribution

Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea Prairie Early Statewide

Prairie Phlox Phlox pilosa Prairie, open Early Statewide woods Hoary and Blue Verbena stricta, Open areas, Early to late Statewide Vervain V. hastata forest edges, disturbed areas Tickseed or Coreopsis palmata Mesic to dry Early to middle Statewide Coreopsis prairies Native Milkweeds Asclepias spp. Open to edge Middle Statewide habitats Pale Purple Echinacea pallida Dry to mesic Middle Statewide Coneflower prairies Native Thistles Cirsium discolor and Prairies, open Middle to late Statewide (Field and Tall) C. altissimum disturbed sites Blazing Stars All Liatris spp. but Upland prairies Late Statewide (particularly Rough) especially Liatris aspera and L. pycnostachya. L. ligulistylis (NE IA only) Goldenrods Solidago spp. Prairies, Late Statewide disturbed areas Asters All Aster spp. but Prairies, Late Statewide (New England, especially A. novae- disturbed areas Heath and Smooth angliae, ericoides, Blue) laevis Sunflowers Helianthus spp., Prairies, Late Statewide Heliopsis spp. roadsides

• Increase flowering plant diversity and interseeding: If a reconstructed prairie seeding already exists, but is lacking in forb and milkweed diversity and abundance, there are methods for interseeding and improving the habitat for monarchs (Bill Johnson, personal communication; Williams et al. 2007). • Burn existing vegetation in the fall. • Interseed forb and milkweed seed in the dormant period (late fall/early spring). • In the following spring, use a grass-specific herbicide to decrease the density of grasses, giving forb and milkweed seeds a competitive advantage. To avoid using herbicide, frequent mowing is a satisfactory substitute. • Extend native plantings that have nectar and host plant resources into ditches and other small “extra” spaces. Monarchs are very adaptable and will use all available habitats, even

78 if it is a more disturbed area. Do not “clean up” or mow these extra spaces where milkweed is growing. Look for opportunities like crop field/foodplots, waterways, and other buffers to incorporate greater flowering plant diversity and milkweed, as long as the area will not be subjected to insecticide drift or other non-compatible management. • Sources of Seed o State-owned conservation land: The DNR’s Prairie Resource Unit produces and collects seed to be planted on DNR public land. The Wildlife and Parks bureaus have an established system for placing orders with the unit, while State Forest managers can contact the unit directly. The unit has been working to increase and diversify its milkweed seed through grants for several years. o Federal Lands: Most seed planted on federal lands is either combined or hand- collected near the area to be planted, or more often, bought from seed vendors. The Plant Iowa Native Resources database (http://www.plantiowanative.com/resources/#services) is a good place to find a list of local seed vendors. o County and City Land: The USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the Prairie Partners program (partnership between Iowa DNR, Native Plant Grower’s Association and Pheasants Forever) are both good sources for assistance in buying native seed for specific projects. o The DNR’s State Forest Nursery also offers a number of shrubs and trees that are butterfly and pollinator friendly, like buttonbush, ninebark, and hackberry. There is a minimum order of 200 seedlings. o Seed Finder: http://www.plantiowanative.com/resources/#services o Collect milkweed seed: . Hand collect seed from milkweed pods just as the seam of the pod is starting to split. The seeds are brown when ripe. . Separate floss from seed by hand immediately, or use a shop vacuum to clean larger quantities of seed depending upon the horsepower. . Ideally plant in fall or refrigerate over winter to cold stratify seed. o Grow milkweed: A thorough publication from the Xerces Society that discusses milkweed propagation. http://www.xerces.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/Milkweeds_XerSoc_june2014.pdf. • Invasive Species Alert: While Cynanchum laeve, honeyvine or blue vine, is a native species and will provide good food for monarch caterpillars, there are a couple of other species of Cynanchum, black swallow-wort (Cynanchum louisea) and pale swallow-wort (Cynanchum rossicum) that have been documented to be toxic for monarchs (Figure 11). Female monarchs will lay eggs on the plants; however, the vegetation is lethal to the caterpillars. Both of these species are not native to Iowa and are invasive. At this time, neither black nor pale swallow-wort have been found in Iowa, but they have been found in surrounding states. Land managers should be monitor for these plants and eradicate them if found. The

79 native Cynanchum, honeyvine, can be distinguished from the invasive species by its distinctive heart-shaped leaves and white flowers. See this Monarch Joint Venture publication for more details.

Figure 11: The following pictures, left to right are: the Invasive Species Cynacheum louisea and Cynacheum rossicum (Both photos by Leslie J. Mehroff, University of Connecticut, Bugwood.org), followed by the native Cynancheum laeve (Photo by Peggy Whetzel). All photos courtesy of the Monarch Joint Venture.

5.5.3.3 Pesticide Usage • If insecticide, herbicide or fungicide must be used, use them in as targeted a manner as possible (avoid broadcast spraying) and follow the package directions exactly. • Follow directions for the application of these pesticides closely, and use extra caution to avoid spray drift onto adjacent areas that may be supporting monarch breeding. 5.5.3.4 Management Practices • Mowing and Haying of Native Prairies: Strategic mowing can enhance breeding habitat by inducing new growth of common milkweed, which is one of the milkweed species preferred by monarchs. However, mowing causes direct mortality and removes most nectar and milkweed for a period of time. Timing of mowing and establishing management units can help balance negative impacts (Fischer et al. 2015). o Mow or hay no more than ⅓ to ½ of a field at a time to avoid causing mortality to larvae and to keep as much area as possible with usable food plants. o Ideal timing would be before May, in late June/early July or after October 1st. These guidelines should also apply to brome/alfalfa hay fields, if there is a significant amount of milkweed in the field. • Burning: Large, frequent burns should be avoided during May through September both to avoid direct mortality of the non-mobile life-stages of the monarch and also to ensure adequate foraging habitat.

80 • Grazing: Light to moderate grazing, especially in a rotational framework, should not have many negative impacts on monarchs and can help diversify the plant community. o Grazing outside of the May through September timeframe should avoid most negative impacts on monarchs. o Short-term, negative impacts from heavier grazing can be ameliorated by not using this management technique during the flight period or not using it on too large a proportion of a contiguous area. o Milkweed species in Iowa are not toxic to livestock unless consumed in large quantities when other forage is unavailable. • Disking: In many instances, disking can be beneficial, especially in promoting common milkweed. It can be employed as a tool for multiple objectives (such as establishing firebreaks and encouraging disturbance for common milkweed) or intentionally on small portions of planted prairies to encourage more milkweed and other forb growth. Disking can increase the abundance of and risk from invasive species so it should not be used in areas with invasive species issues and should not be used on remnant prairie areas. • Establishing a Garden: There may be circumstances or areas that would be ideally suited to creating a butterfly and pollinator garden as a demonstration and outreach tool for the general public. o Include educational signage about the proper size and configuration of the garden as well as information on the insects, including monarchs that use it. o Make the garden big enough to hold at least 30 milkweed plants plus a diversity of other nectar-producing plants that bloom May to September. An area at least 10 x 10 ft2 (100 ft2; 9 m2) of any shape is ideal for creating monarch habitat, though it does not matter whether the space is contiguous or broken into smaller patches. o Use native plants. o Refer to the BMPs for urban/suburban environments in Section 5.5.3 for more information and resources. 5.5.3.5 Literature Cited for BMPs for State, County and Federal Lands Fischer, S.J., E.H. Williams, L.P. Brower and P.A. Palmiotto. 2015. Enhancing Monarch butterfly reproduction by mowing fields of common milkweed. American Midland Naturalist173(2):229- 240. Flockhart, D.T.T., J. Pichancourt, D.R. Norris, and T.G. Martin. 2015. Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding season habitat loss drives population declines of Monarch butterflies. Journal of Animal Ecology 84:155-165. Miller, N.G., L.I. Wassenaar, K.A. Hobson, and D. R. Norris. 2012. Migratory connectivity of the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus): Patterns of spring re-colonization in Eastern North America. PLoS ONE 7(3):e31891.

81 Pleasants, J.M., and K.S. Oberhauser. 2012. Milkweed Loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on Monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6:135- 144. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/inline-files/pollinatoryardbmps.pdf. Pocius, V.M., D.M. Debinski, J.M. Pleasants, K.G. Bidne, R.L. Hellmich and L.P. Brower. 2017. Milkweed matters: Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) survival and development on nine Midwestern milkweed species. Environmental Entomology 46(5):1098-1105. Pocius, V.M., D.M. Debinski, J.M. Pleasants, K.G. Bidne, R.L. Hellmich. 2018. Monarch butterflies do not lay all of their eggs in one basket: Oviposition on nine Midwestern milkweed species. Ecosphere 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2064. Pfister, J.A., F.D. Provenza, K.E. Panter, B.L. Stegelmeier, and K.L. Launchbaugh. 2002. Risk management to reduce livestock losses from toxic plants. Journal of range management 291-300. Wassenaar, L.I., and K.A. Hobson. 1998. Natal origins of migratory monarch butterflies at wintering colonies in Mexico: New isotopic evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:15436-15439. Williams, D.W., L.L. Jackson, and D.D. Smith. 2007. Effects of frequent mowing on survival and persistence of forbs seeded into a species-poor grassland. Restoration Ecology 50:24-33.

5.5.4 BMPs for Rights of Way (e.g., road, rail, utilities) 5.5.4.1 County Roadsides The BMPs described in this document are summarized from the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Technical Manual. Landowners who wants to plant native species in a roadside should begin by contacting the local state highway maintenance office if it is along a federal or state road or the county engineer or roadside vegetation manager if it is along a county road to see if a permit is needed. This can also lead to connections with individuals familiar with designing roadside plantings. Landowners may also want to refer to the Landowners and Roadsides brochure or the Iowa’s Mowing Law brochure. 5.5.4.1.1 Establish Diverse Plantings with Native Seed Utilize the principle of species diversity for a strong, weed-resistant plant community. Native plants are durable, long-lived perennials well-adapted to Iowa’s climate and growing season, and a diverse native planting adapts to a wide range of soil and moisture conditions. The Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Program employs a mix of species suited to the range of growing conditions in a typical roadside and the varying climatic conditions of an Iowa growing season. 5.5.4.1.2 Native Seed for County Rights-of-Way Since 1998, Iowa’s Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management program has received funds from the Federal Highway Administration’s Transportation Alternatives program (TAP), which is administered through the Iowa DOT, to purchase native seed for county road rights-of-way.

82 Counties may request a Diversity Mix (30 to 45 native grass, forb, and sedge species) or a Cleanout Mix (15 to 20 native grass, forb, and sedge species). Counties generally request the Cleanout Mix for degraded sites that are likely to be disturbed and will need to be seeded again: for example, ditches that tend to silt in and will need to be cleaned out and seeded again. They generally request the Diversity Mix for less degraded sites that are less likely to need to be reseeded in the near future. However, there are exceptions, and some counties prefer to get only the Cleanout mix, and other counties prefer to get only the Diversity mix. County employees such as roadside vegetation managers, roads department workers, or conservation technicians typically plant the seed in association with road grading or ditch cleanout projects. The availability of TAP seed mixes means counties purchase directly from commercial seed vendors only when they wish to supplement the TAP seed mixes or when a unique mix is desired for a special project.

Recommended: Yellow-tag: Yellow-tag, source-identified seed is highly recommended for roadside plantings. Because this Iowa seed is certified as to source, the region and climate to which it is adapted are known. This seed is often collected from multiple sites within a region of the state, giving it a broad genetic base and potentially making it adapted to a wider range of growing conditions.

Recommended: Local ecotype: Non-certified, local ecotype seed of Iowa or nearby origin is also appropriate for roadside plantings and can be obtained from seed vendors by requesting “local ecotype” seed. Some counties establish their own local ecotype prairie grass and wildflower production plots with seed collected from prairie remnants within their county or region. It is important for this seed to be well cleaned and tested so it is known how much live seed is actually being planted.

Not Recommended: Cultivars: Cultivars or cultivated varieties are generally not recommended because they are often derived from sources too far south and west of Iowa and so are adapted to a different climate and growing season. Most were developed for forage production and can be too aggressive in diverse plantings. Cultivars are available in only a limited number of species.

5.5.4.1.3 Seed Mixes Native roadside seed mixes need to include species adapted to a wide range of growing conditions, from wet to mesic to dry. To outcompete weeds, the mix should also include species that occupy different ecological niches within the planting, grass species and broadleaf species, warm-season and cool-season species, tall plants to shade out thistle seedlings and small plants to fill in underneath. A well-rounded native seed mix will include species from each of these groups: quick establishing, warm-season grasses, cool-season species, legumes, showy and easy, showy, early bloomers, and wet species.

The Iowa Living Roadway Trust Fund Native Plant Database includes information about each plant species range within the state of Iowa. This will be helpful for projects in which species native to the specific region are desired.

83 Learn more about reading seed labels to ensure high quality seed, seed storage, seed mix options, seeding rates, and seed viability in the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Technical Manual. 5.5.4.1.4 Site Preparation Careful site preparation increases success by enhancing seed to soil contact and achieving proper planting depth. Plan for site preparation by walking the site to look for gullies, culverts, and hazards, such as rocks or stumps. Mowing and disking help increase the amount of sunlight that reaches the soil and ensures the seeds make contact with the dirt (be sure to check with utility companies before disking). Prepare for planting by calculating the seed volume that will be needed, and consider whether erosion control practices will be needed. Additional preparation tips for specific planting practices can be found in the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Technical Manual. Prior to working the site • Walk the site looking for gullies, culverts and other hazards (e.g., logs, stones, stumps, etc.). • If weed growth is excessive, mow and disk stubble into the soil, if possible. • Check with utility companies before disking. • Calculate the size of the area to be planted and the amount of seed it will take. • Size up the watershed and the site’s erosion potential. Seedbed preparation for drill seeding • Ideal seedbeds are friable, firm and smooth. • To reduce soil erosion, don’t smooth up the site until just before planting. • Relatively level sites can be worked with a disk, chain-tooth harrow or similar equipment. • To avoid excessive clodding, don’t work the site while it’s too wet. • Cultipacking can help firm the seedbed and reduce clods. Seedbed preparation for hydroseeding • Seedbeds can be left rougher to reduce soil erosion. • Steep slopes can be ripped with a wide-track dozer. • Directional tracking can be used to interrupt water flow. • Work the site perpendicular to the slope to interrupt water flow. Heavily compacted soils • Try to work the site to a depth of three inches. • A heavy disk might be necessary. • Some sites may need to be worked with long bulldozer tines.

84 5.5.4.1.5 Seeding Basic steps to successful seeding: • Use good seed. • Place seed in direct contact with the soil. • Don’t bury seed more than ¼ in. deep. • Pack seed tightly to the soil. • Include erosion control measures where necessary. Timing: The best months for planting seed are May and June, but this is not always possible. Other seeding methods or adjustments, such as frost (dormant) seeding or careful timing can be used to increase success. More detail is available in the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Technical Manual. Planting can be done by drill seeding, hydroseeding, broadcasting or hand seeding. Hydroseeding is best for planting areas that are difficult to reach, that are steep or wet. It must be done on bare ground. Broadcast seeding is a good option to ensure seed is not planted too deep and is faster than hydroseeding. It is best to pack the seed after planting, and this is especially important for seed that is broadcasted. Hand seeding is an option for small sites. 5.5.4.1.6 Site Management 5.5.4.1.6.1 Weed control Use herbicides sparingly: Overuse of herbicides weakens stands of grasses, allowing increased weed invasion. Careless use of herbicides also destroys beneficial broadleaf species that would otherwise help prevent weeds by occupying the same niche sought by broadleaf weeds. Increase training of herbicide applicators, and spray with better timing and better technology to increase effectiveness of each treatment. Be sure labels are followed, and consider adjuvants to avoid drift or increase spray effectiveness. Know Local Weeds: The Iowa Living Roadway Trust Fund Native Plant Database includes a list of weed threats and recommendations for management. Hire conservation-minded applicators for county spray crews or train the current staff. Educate Others: Sharing information about weed management with landowners can help reduce disturbances that allow weeds to germinate. Helping landowners understand how roadsides differ from crop or turf management will build relationships that benefit both the public and roadside managers by reducing concerns and avoiding complaints. Mowing: While planting native habitat eliminates the need for regular mowing, mowing patches of weeds reduces seed production and dispersal. During the first growing season, native seedlings remain small and can suffer losses due to competition by tall, thick weeds. • Mow the planting three or four times during the first growing season. • Don’t wait until weeds are too tall. • A mowing height of 4 in (10 cm) is good but to avoid scalping, 8 in (20 cm) is better.

85 Note that monarchs often lay eggs near the top of milkweed so mowing can separate eggs or caterpillars from remaining milkweed. Ideally, after year one, mow only 1/3 of the habitat in a year, and try to time the mowing to be before monarchs arrive (May 1), between June 30 and July 10 and after October 1. Monarch Joint Venture provides mowing instructions along with timing suggestions here: https://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/MowingForMonarchs.pdf. Burning: Conduct prescribed burns to promote healthy native vegetation. By burning native plantings every three to five years or so, trained and well-equipped crews use fire as the most effective means of managing fire-adapted prairie species. This also helps prevent brush and trees from becoming established. The Iowa Living Roadway Trust Fund Native Plant Database includes details and suggestions about how to conduct a burn.

5.6 Research 5.6.1 Active Research Projects: How to Plant Habitat 5.6.1.1 ISU: NRCS CIG-US “Enhancing Monarch Butterfly Conservation in Iowa” To address monarch population declines, ISU has initiated a demonstration project to incorporate milkweed into existing grass-dominated landscapes on EQIP-eligible farms to support monarch butterfly recovery ($760,897 awarded). Objectives for statewide demonstration and research include the following: (1) vegetation augmentation: partner with farmers to evaluate seed mixes and cost-effective methods for augmenting existing habitat, (2) vegetation replacement: partner with farmers to evaluate cost-effective methods for replacing existing grass-dominated habitat with milkweeds and companion plants, (3) evaluate additional milkweed species for plant growth, development, persistence, monarch oviposition preference and caterpillar performance, (4) disseminate project results through ISU Extension and Outreach field days and outreach. 5.6.1.2 ISU: NRCS CIG-IA “Integrating Nutrient Reduction and Monarch Conservation” This project is the first to incorporate habitat enhancements specifically designed for monarch butterfly recovery and pollinators within the installation protocols for saturated buffers, a technology that plays a significant role in meeting Iowa’s nutrient reduction goals ($75,000 awarded). Objectives of this study include the following: (1) demonstrate effective methods for establishing monarch and pollinator habitat in riparian zones associated with installation of saturated buffers. In doing this, ISU is partnering with EQIP producers and NRCS to evaluate the costs to establish and maintain enhanced habitat as part of saturated buffer installation; (2) disseminate project results through ISU Extension and Outreach field days and outreach. 5.6.1.3 ISU: Iowa Soybean Association Grant “Establishing Monarch Breeding Habitat as Bioreactor Groundcover” This project provides support to ISU to develop approaches to enhance vegetative groundcover over new and existing bioreactors to provide habitat to support monarch butterfly breeding

86 ($86,154 awarded for 2016 to 2018). Objectives include the following: (1) development of cost- effective methods for establishing monarch habitat over bioreactors; (2) evaluation of establishment and persistence of milkweeds and companion plants and monarch utilization as “habitat-enhanced” bioreactor sites; and (3) promotion best practices through field days, videos, and publication of guidelines for monarch habitat establishment. The dual use of “habitat- enhanced’ bioreactors benefit soybean farmers by supporting strategies for state-wide reductions in nutrient loads, increasing monarch reproduction and enhanced pollinator diversity throughout the state. 5.6.1.4 ISU: Iowa Pork Producers Association Grant “Establishing Monarch Butterfly Breeding Habitat on Iowa Swine Production Sites” The dual use of “habitat-enhanced” swine production sites benefits swine producers by adding a key strategy for environmental improvement at Iowa’s swine production sites and significantly increasing monarch reproduction and increasing pollinator diversity throughout the state ($125,841 awarded for 2016 to 2018). Objectives include the following: (1) to develop cost-effective, biosecure methods for establishing monarch habitat at Iowa swine production sites; (2) evaluate establishment and persistence of milkweeds and companion plants and monarch utilization at “habitat-enhanced” swine production sites; and (3) promote best practices through video and publication of guidelines for monarch habitat establishment and management. 5.6.1.5 ISU: AFRI Grant This study will determine how habitat fragmentation, habitat quality and pesticide use in corn and soybean production interact to influence population growth rates of monarch generations in their summer breeding range ($670,675.00 awarded for 2018 to 2020). The team will experimentally advance understanding of monarch flight behavior and habitat utilization; acute and chronic risks of insecticide exposure to eggs, larvae and adults; and responses of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) to sub-lethal herbicide exposure and secondary effects on larval production. Findings of field and laboratory studies are being incorporated in an agent-based, spatially-explicit model that simulates monarch butterfly movement, egg-laying behavior, and population responses as a function of varying landscape fragmentation patterns and pesticide-use scenarios. The project provides the means to evaluate conservation benefits and risks of pollinator habitat placement options in spatially explicit agricultural landscapes and directly supports state, regional, and national monarch conservation programs. 5.6.1.6 University of Northern Iowa: Tallgrass Prairie Center Seed mixes designed to meet single-goal conservation objectives (e.g., pollinator forage) may not be sufficient to produce stands of native vegetation that persist long-term. This project’s objective is to compare measures of native vegetation quality and cost effectiveness in field experiments with and without establishment mowing for three different seed mixes that differ in grass-to-forb ratio and soil type customization (economy grass mix, diversity mix, and pollinator mix). After two years of vegetation establishment, the diversity mix had four times as many native stems, had greater native cover, and had equal amounts of native forbs as the pollinator mix. The diversity mix was also four times more cost-effective in producing native vegetation. Continuing work on

87 this project will assess long-term vegetation measures to understand how well seed mixes and early establishment outcomes and can predict long-term ecological quality in native plantings. The University of Northern Iowa has a set of materials for best management practices for agricultural lands, including five technical guides, several videos, and more will be produced in the next year. In addition, the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management office within the Tallgrass Prairie Center has materials for best management practices for rights of ways. 5.6.2 Active Research Projects: How Many Habitat Patches are Needed, What Arrangement is Best, and What Kind of Quality is Necessary? 5.6.2.1 ISU/Consortium Funded Research This project’s overall goal is to contribute to scientific foundational studies of eastern monarch butterfly feeding and breeding behaviors in response to habitat characteristics and pesticide pressures within agroecosystems. The objectives are to (1) further the development of a spatially explicit model for monarch butterfly movement and egg-laying behavior, (2) understand monarch field movement and habitat utilization, (3) determine the sensitivity of monarch larvae to insecticide levels in corn and soybean agricultural regions, and (4) determine the effect of herbicides on common milkweed and the potential impact on monarch butterfly egg and larvae counts. Empirical data on monarch utilization of various habitat/patch characteristics (fragmentation and density) are being collected using radio telemetry in Iowa corn and soybean agricultural areas. Toxicity of pesticides are being determined to assess effects on larval survival and development in habitat patches. Collected data are contributing to the enhancement of a spatially explicit population model that is being used to evaluate monarch productivity based on varying milkweed/companion plant species combinations, patch sizes, and spatial arrangements. The spatially explicit model serves as a starting point for modeling monarch population responses at state and regional scales and will guide future conservation plans. Portions of this research effort are within a USDA-NIFA grant that was awarded on February 1, 2018. 5.6.2.2 Monarch Joint Venture The Monarch Joint Venture is continuing a study originally conducted by the University of Minnesota Monarch Lab evaluating the effectiveness of prairie restoration efforts. Working with USFWS, NRCS, the Wisconsin DNR, and a private company, Prairie Restorations Inc., they identified 30 restored prairies in Minnesota and Wisconsin. For each site, information was acquired on the planting date, seed mix, and all management actions (burning, mowing, and reseeding). The field season spanned from May until September, and each site was visited four times in order to capture a full blooming season. Data were collected on milkweed density, monarch egg and larvae density, adult monarch sightings, and nectar plant frequency. Preliminary results indicate that most restored prairies have a peak bloom in the midsummer, but nectar plants are available to monarchs throughout the season. Additionally, it was observed that milkweed was often present even if not included in the seed mix. Common milkweed grew in 14 out of 14 sites where it was planted, but was also present in 11 more sites where it was not planted. Unfortunately, very few monarchs were observed in 2016; thus conclusions on the correlation between management practices and greater monarch densities require additional study. Data from the study is being processed.

88 5.6.3 Active Research Project: Roadside Habitat Evaluation 5.6.3.1 Monarch Joint Venture: Roadside Evaluation A research project entitled, “Evaluating the Suitability of Roadway corridors for Use by Monarch Butterflies” is supported through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program and aims to deliver tools and methodology that will assist roadside managers in (1) selecting roadside habitat for restoration at broad and fine scales, (2) evaluating habitat quality and potential to produce monarchs and (3) selecting appropriate best management practices for habitat management and/or restoration. This is a two-year project that is being conducted by the Monarch Joint Venture and overseen by Dr. Emilie Snell-Rood. 5.6.4 Active Research Projects: How can Monitoring Efforts be Coordinated? 5.6.4.1 Iowa DNR Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Program The Iowa DNR partners with ISU to carry out the Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Program (MSIM). This program has been surveying properties (mostly public land, some private lands sites) since 2006. Over 300 properties have been surveyed by wildlife technicians recording observations of butterflies (as well as mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, dragonflies, etc.). These surveys provide information about how Iowa’s monarch population trends compare to the annual surveys at the overwintering sites as well as how monarch occupancy relates to habitat condition on conservation lands. 5.6.5 Active Research Projects: How will Climate affect Monarch Population Viability? 5.6.5.1 ISU/Department of Defense Ecologists now widely recognize that the timing of monarch life cycle events is shifting in response to directional (non-stationary) environmental change. However, it is not clear whether these shifts generally benefit or reduce population viability. This project will combine historical data and experimental manipulations to determine how environmental variation and shifting interactions affect population viability of at-risk species. The goals of this project are to investigate (1) the extent of recent changes in phenology, (2) the correspondence between new phenologies of interacting species, and (3) the importance of these changes for population viability. Work will focus on three at-risk butterfly species (Baltimore checkerspot [Euphydryas phaeton], Puget blue [Plebejus icarioides blackmorei] and monarch [Danaus plexippus]). All three species are not currently federally listed but are under consideration for listing at various levels. By integrating vital rates across the life cycle into demographic models, these efforts will contribute to understanding management of these species and to a general framework to highlight conditions under which phenological changes have positive, negative, or negligible effects on population dynamics (award total is $2,136,945 from 2017 to 2022).

89 5.6.6 Proposed Research: Evaluation of Existing Habitat 5.6.6.1 ISU: Evaluation of Monarch Roadside Habitat and Monarch Mortality This research project was proposed by the ISU Center for Transportation Research and Education and submitted to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. The proposed research effort was designed to investigate suitable use of road right-of-way corridors to enhance and sustain future monarch butterfly habitat, growth, and migration. The grant proposed to address the following three questions: • What are the current habitat quality and milkweed density attributes of highway corridor right-of-way? • What are the related “source” metrics for promoting monarchs within these corridors? • What are the related “sink” metrics for highway-related mortality with monarchs utilizing these corridors? Funding for this grant was not successful, but a smaller $25,000 seed grant from NSF was awarded, which will allow the team to develop research methods related to this proposal. 5.7 Information, Education and Outreach Since one of the major goals of this effort is to increase acres of milkweed habitat, the primary target audience will be rural landowners, including farmers. There will also be many secondary audiences, such as gardeners, urban groups, schools, churches and recreational landowners; federal, state, and county agencies; and private, county and state-managed rights of ways, such as railways, utilities, and roadsides. All messages will be positive and consistent. The first two messages that will be distributed are • Iowa is taking a leadership role in monarch conservation by creating this strategy and promoting voluntary conservation efforts based on science. While everyone has a role to play, farmers are needed for the strategy to be succeed; farming and monarch conservation can occur simultaneously • The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium is a community-led organization whose mission is to enhance monarch butterfly reproduction and survival in Iowa through collaborative and coordinated efforts of farmers, private citizens and their organizations

Additional messages will continue to be crafted for other audiences. Thus far, tools for sharing monarch information include the consortium website, Iowamonarchs.info, the 5 Ways to Help Monarchs half-page handout created by IDALS, a strategy summary document (full page), and a dedicated Facebook page and Twitter account. Partnering organizations are empowered to use the tools readily available to them to distribute these resources. Consistent talking points will be made available to all organizations, including answers to the most commonly asked questions. Technical experts/organizations who can field questions about various topics have been identified. In addition, channels for distributing the message have been determined, such as the Farm Progress Show, consortium member events, meetings, tradeshows, or sponsored media events. Measures of

90 success using goals and metrics based on the logic model, including how often communications will be measured, will be explained in future versions of the strategy. The communication plan will be closely coordinated with landowner recruitment efforts, and efforts to disseminate information will be tracked in the data management system. For example, outreach events, locations, dates and approximate participant numbers will be recorded, and contact information from individuals who contact the consortium will be stored for reference (signing up for notifications/email will be an additional option but not required). Potential challenges include keeping consistent messaging across organizations with all communication efforts. Another challenge will be finding a way to coordinate communication content and timing with numerous organizations that are also promoting monarch conservation and to establish a consistent process that can be utilized repeatedly. Consistent dedication to the communication effort is perceived to require consistent funding. 5.8 Accomplishments Through 2017 5.8.1 Federal Monarch Conservation Progress Nationally, many federal (USDA, NRCS, FSA, and DOI, USFWS) and state programs are actively supporting voluntary monarch conservation, and the majority of private grasslands and shallow wetlands in Iowa have been restored from cropland after being enrolled in term or perpetual easement programs administered by the USDA. These efforts include FSA CRP, including the State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE), and CREP, Pollinator Habitat Planting CP42, Honey Bee Initiative, NRCS EQIP, NRCS CSP, NRCS ACEP (formerly the Wetland Reserve Program), comprised of the Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) and Wetland Reserve Easement (WRE) programs. In addition, public/private partnerships on federal land has allowed the USFWS Neil Smith Wildlife Refuge to receive funding through the People for Pollinators Program, which received $220,770 for monarch habitat installation in 2017. All lands enrolled in the WRP, WRE and ALE as well as many CSP practices and some EQIP practices, as conservation lands, have the potential to benefit monarchs (Table 4). Note that pollinator/monarch plantings are not planted on all these acres. At one time, 2,200,000 ac (890,000 ha) of Iowa were enrolled in the CRP; however, program changes and early failure to keep pace with cash rental rates at a time of high crop prices reduced enrollment to 1,457,518 ac (281,000 ha) by 2014. However, continued interest in a more targeted CRP and cyclical, declining crop prices again has resulted in the current CRP enrollment figure of 1,801,220 ac (728,927 ha). The 2014 farm bill reduced the national cap on CRP from 38,500,000 to 24,000,000 ac (15,600,000 to 9,110,000 ha) effective in 2017 and 2018, and the total number of acres nationally is close to this cap 22,630,491 ac (9,158,234 ha) (FSA CRP Monthly Summary – July 2018). Continuous CRP conservation practices, such as CP42, Pollinator Enhancement, currently capped at 520,000 ac (210,000 ha) nationwide is very popular in Iowa, which has 219,698 ac (88,908 ha) already enrolled 43% of the total national enrollment. Iowa has thousands of acres of CRP set to expire from 2016 to 2020: 95,657 ac (38,711 ha) in 2016; 218,230 ac (88,314 ha) in 2017; 160,120 ac (64,798 ha) in 2018; 136,407 ac (55,201.9 ha) in

91 2019; 208,545 ac (84,395.2 ha) in 2020, and 91,918 ac (37,197.9 ha) in 2021, or a total area of approximately 911,000 ac (369,000 ha).

Table 440. Iowa USDA Conservation Program enrollments as of July, 2018. The total area added in 2015 to 2018 is 1,818,857 ac (736,065 ha).

Program Area (ac) Source

CRP (General) FSA

533,209 ac https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA- Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/JULY%202018%20Sum mary.pdf

CRP (Continuous, NON-SAFE) FSA

990,772 ac https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA- Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/JULY%202018%20Sum mary.pdf

SAFE – Early FSA (Page 27) Successional/Neotropical 1,198 ac https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA- Birds Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/JULY%202018%20Sum mary.pdf

SAFE – Gaining Ground FSA (Page 27) (Grassland Birds) 163,182 ac https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA- Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/JULY%202018%20Sum mary.pdf

SAFE – Grand River FSA (Page 27) (Grassland Birds in Ringgold 2,169 ac https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA- County) Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/JULY%202018%20Sum mary.pdf

SAFE – Pheasant Recovery FSA (Page 27)

86,856 ac https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA- Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/JULY%202018%20Sum mary.pdf

SAFE – Early Successional FSA (Page 27) Quail Habitat 37,271 ac

40 With the exception of the acres noted with †, areas reflect conservation efforts; the practices that include blooming native plants that provide forage for monarchs should provide some benefit to monarchs, and the practices that only include grasses will not provide any benefits for forage or egg laying.

92 https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA- Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/JULY%202018%20Sum mary.pdf

CSP 0 ac†‡ USDA NRCS, Personal Communication with James Cronin, December 29, 2016

WRP 178 ac† USDA NRCS, Personal Communication with James Cronin, December 29, 2016

ACEP (ALE and WRE) 3,842 ac# www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/srpt_cp_a cep.html

EQIP (new contracts) 180 ac† USDA NRCS, Personal Communication with James Cronin, December 29, 2016

Total Potential Acres 1,818,857 ac

† Reported acres target monarchs specifically (not pollinators in general) in 2016. ‡ Only one plant enhancement activity called PLT-15 targeted monarch/pollinators in FY16, whereas one enhancement will target monarchs in fiscal year 2017 with an additional three enhancements specifically targeting pollinators and beneficial insects # ACEP acres enrolled in 2014 and 2015 are included. There were no new WRE contracts in 2016 (James Cronin, USDA NRCS, Personal Communication, December 29, 2016.

5.8.1.1 USDA NRCS Iowa monarch EQIP funds were allocated, and efforts were made to establish approved monarch conservation practices. Iowa requested an amount of $150,000 ($135,000 is obligated as of February 2017). Nationally, $1.8 million was requested under EQIP, and currently, 93% of this is obligated. The NRCS state offices may request additional funding in fiscal year 2017. In addition to monarch project funds, NRCS state offices have wildlife subaccounts associated with their EQIP programs, whereby eligible landowners may also support monarch conservation. The NRCS wetland easement programs (WRP and WRE) as well as the CSP are also expected to receive targeted funding in fiscal year 2017. 5.8.1.2 USDA FSA From mid-2015 through 2017, an additional 251,200 ac (101,657 ha) of habitat have been installed under pollinator contracts; most but not all have milkweed included in the mix. Iowa farmers have planted more than 219,698 ac (88,908 ha) of pollinator habitat through the FSA’s continuous CP42 CRP over seven years (most was installed in from mid-2015 through 2017); this accounts for 43% of the current national enrollment. A minimum of three species were included for pollinator nectar sources for late season migration. 5.8.1.3 USFWS In addition, federal funds are being used to restore monarch habitat in Iowa with several projects. The USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in Iowa provides cost share and technical assistance to landowners on a wide array of USFWS and USDA conservation programs. The partners program presently has an operations budget of roughly $100,000 per year. The Iowa Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is a participant in multiple NFWF-funded projects to create "Monarch Flyways" through Iowa including the I-35 corridor, Loess Hills of western Iowa and along the Mississippi Flyway in eastern Iowa. In addition, habitat work in the Little Sioux

93 Watershed and I-380 corridor in the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City area have added additional butterfly corridors within the state. The three grants from 2015 to 2018 have created over 3,100 ac (1,200 ha) of new habitat for monarchs and restored or improved habitat for monarchs on over 10,000 ac (4,000 ha). An additional NFWF grant award of $500,082 was also given to USFWS to be used in 2017 to restore habitat in the Midwest. The USFWS also administers the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) for wetland and adjacent upland restoration and protection. The NAWCA is authorized to receive up to $50 million annually, with 50% block granted to Canada and Mexico. In 2016, $33 million was appropriated. There are two grant cycles per year and two types of grants: Standard Grants for over $75,000 and usually over $1 million, and small grants for projects under $75,000. The small grant application process is relatively simple and may provide an opportunity for county and community-scale conservation projects. In recent years, Iowa has received about $2 million annually in NAWCA grants. The Iowa DNR sits on the NAWCA Council and makes recommendations for funding to the Congressional Migratory Bird Conservation Committee that has final approval authority. 5.8.2 US Army Corps of Engineers The US Army Corps of Engineers has been working to restore wetland habitat throughout the State of Iowa though a wetland mitigation program. During the last five years, approximately 474.2 ac (191.8 ha) have been established. While the primary goal of the mitigation sites is to replace the function and value of wetlands lost as a result of the Corps’ permitting process, the restored areas do provide space for milkweed to thrive, and milkweed has been observed within the sites even though they are not managed specifically to serve as monarch habitat. The Regulatory In-Lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website shows the locations and sizes of mitigation banks in the United States and within Iowa: https://ribits.usace.army.mil/ribits_apex/f?p=107:2. 5.8.3 Iowa Monarch Conservation Progress 5.8.3.1 Iowa DNR Monarch Conservation Activities

5.8.3.1.1 Iowa DNR: Conservation Delivery on Private Lands The Iowa DNR’s Private Lands Program has staff members located in USDA Service Centers. The Iowa DNR Private Lands staff members partner with Conservation Districts of Iowa, NRCS, FSA, IDALS, Pheasants Forever, the USFWS, and others to deliver conservation assistance (technical and financial) to private landowners in Iowa. Beginning in 2015, the DNR’s Private Lands Program has engaged with the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to defray seed costs to landowners planting monarch-friendly habitat. The program is also part of the partnership implementing the NFWF grant led by the INHF.

94 5.8.3.1.2 Iowa DNR: Monarch Conservation on Land Owned or Managed by DNR The Iowa DNR prairie reconstruction projects in Iowa have averaged about 1,950 ac (789 ha) per year since 2000. The Iowa DNR Prairie Resource Center (PRC) has been supplying the department with diverse local ecotype prairie seed since 2000 for use on Iowa DNR lands. The majority of the 21,500 ac (8,700 ha) of public grassland may be manipulated if necessary to increase forb density, however, significant additional resources would be needed to accomplish this on such a wide scale. For the past several years, the PRC has worked to increase the amount and the diversity of species of milkweed plants used in grassland restoration projects on public lands. Monarch Joint Venture small grants and PRC’s partnership with University of Northern Iowa’s Tallgrass Prairie Center have supported this effort. The biologist of the PRC also collaborates with ISU plant pathologists to improve milkweed production techniques. The Iowa DNR Wildlife Bureau recently partnered with the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance and IDALS on a $10 million grant proposal to the NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Of the $10 million to be spent over four years, $2 million were for ACEP ALE (grassland) and WRE easements. This portion of the RCPP grant is being administered by the DNR Wildlife Bureau and INHF. In 2015, in response to staff questions about how to best help monarchs on properties they manage, the Iowa DNR developed habitat management guidance for managers of wildlife areas and state parks and forests.

5.8.3.1.3 Iowa DNR: Education and Outreach The Iowa DNR staff participate in monarch conservation events, such as the Blank Park Zoo’s Monarch Festival. The Iowa DNR and IDALS are members of the Plant.Grow.Fly. partnership. Staff conduct presentations to citizens on topics, such as gardening for pollinators and monarch tagging. The Iowa DNR and IDALS have used opportunities such as these and the Iowa State Fair to hand out handouts developed by the consortium depicting the Five Conservation Actions that citizens can begin now to help monarchs. 5.8.3.2 IDALS: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant The IDALS, in partnership with Pathfinders (RC&D), received a NFWF grant during the fall of 2015 for $227,400 with the goal of establishing 3,311 ac (1,340 ha) of habitat in 4 Division programs. Grant money was matched with $259,137 partner dollars. Most acres have been added through the Buffer Initiative incentive program on CP42. IDALS implemented 5,241.78 ac (2,121 ha), which is 1,931 ac (781 ha) more than the established goal. Funding for several field days during 2017 was a part of the grant. Two public field days and four staff-oriented field days were held with attendance exceeding 340 people. The public field days were in conjunction with Iowa Learning Farms. 5.8.3.3 Iowa’s County Conservation System Iowa’s County Conservation System is supporting monarch conservation by restoring monarch habitat, hosting educational outreach events, and cooperating with Monarch Watch to create

95 waystations and tag monarchs. This section only includes progress updates from a few of the counties; additional county updates are included in Appendix I, and future versions of the strategy will include information from additional counties as more detail becomes available. Note: summaries below are from 2016. In Appendix F, within the State, the County and Federal Lands (Public) section, County Conservation Board habitat accomplishments through 2017 and expected future efforts have been included in Public Land estimates for habitat restoration.

5.8.3.3.1 Adair County The Adair County Conservation Board planted 19 ac (7.7 ha) of Monarch Habitat in 2016 at the Hoskins Wildlife Area as part of an Iowa DNR/USFWS monarch project. In addition to the pollinator mix that was planted as part of the grant, the Conservation Board Staff hand harvested common milkweed, prairie blazing star and rattlesnake master seed and planted on the 19 ac. The Orient-Macksburg School Future Farmers of America classes grew common milkweed plants in their green house and gave the plants away in the community as part of the effort to help monarchs.

5.8.3.3.2 Cerro Gordo County The Cerro Gordo County Conservation Board has supported monarch conservation with communication and outreach efforts as well as habitat restoration efforts: • Created materials to support monarch programs, including a logo, flier and website (www.monarchmania.com) • Registered 54 gardens registered through the website (surpassed goal of 50) o Received numerous photos submissions o Included numerous blog posts • Published two local newspaper articles with an introduction to the program (November 2015) and an announcement about the website launch (February 2016) • Promoted monarch program via KIMT TV story (June of 2016) • Planted pollinator habitat at local schools (provided plants, mulch, landscape fabric) to Hoover (270 ft2 [25 m2]); Clear Creek (22,000 ft2 frost seeding [2,044 m2]); 100 ft2 (9 m2) garden; Jefferson (150 ft2 [14 m2]); Roosevelt (200 ft2 [20 m2]); and Harding (200 ft2 [20 m2]) • Planted milkweed plants at local schools, including Mason City High School (1,500 plants) and West Fork Middle School (5,000 plants) • Planted or distributed milkweed plants (distributed approximately 5,500 plants) to registered Monarch Mania gardeners, Fresh on Fridays at Central Gardens (Clear Lake), Clear Lake Farmer’s Market, Five school gardens, Lime Creek Nature Center planting (240 plants), YMCA planting, and to the general public. • Distributed Monarch Mania signs and certificates for registered gardens • Hosted eight programs for civic groups – 184 people

96 • Coordinated programs and education, including a presentation by Dr. Karen Oberhauser (May of 2016) (60 people), Facebook posts/Lime Creek Nature Center website, school monarch programming (September/October – 7 programs for 270 students), for seniors only – pollinators (October) (48 people), Monarch Mania pollinator garden program (November) (58 people), pollinator programs for all county elementary schools for National Wildlife Week – (37 programs for 2,270 students) and a Band Festival Float (3rd place)

5.8.3.3.3 Decatur County In 2015, Decatur County Conservation worked with USFWS to plant approximately 10 ac (4 ha) of monarch butterfly habitat at Slip Bluff Park. In 2016, working with the Southern Iowa Oak Savanna Alliance (SIOSA) and Graceland University, a “Bringing Back the Monarchs” workshop was held with 20 participants. This workshop covered Monarch lifecycles, habitat needs and monitoring. Graceland students, Decatur County Conservation Board Staff and SIOSA will be regularly monitoring the pollinator plot at Slip Bluff to study Monarch use of the area through a Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Conservation Education Program Grant received by SIOSA.

5.8.3.3.4 Dickinson County Pollinator Habitat and Biodiversity Projects Dickinson County Conservation completed the following reseeding and diversity projects, which should be beneficial to monarchs even though the habitat was not designed to meet monarch specific habitat requirements. The following projects were completed in 2016: • 57 total ac (23 ha) reseeded to diverse prairie and savanna at Horseshoe Bend, Judd Wildlife Area, Kenue Park, Nature Center, EOB Bio-cell and County ROW • 245 ac (99.1 ha) burned to promote habitat diversity at Horseshoe Bend, Judd Wildlife Area, Kenue Park, Little Sioux Savanna • 1,000 native plant plugs planted into low-diversity areas @ Horseshoe Bend, Kenue Park, and EOB Bio-cell • Over 100 lb of native seed, including threatened species, collected for future integration into low-diversity areas The following projects are planned for 2017: • 45+ ac (18 ha) to be reseeded at Judd, Little Sioux Savanna, Hog Lot, Nature Center, Audubon Bird Sanctuary • 15 ac (6.1 ha) of low diversity areas to be interseeded with collected seed at Horseshoe Bend • 1,000 native plant plugs to be planted into low-diversity areas @ Horseshoe Bend

97 • 450+ ac (182 ha) to be burned to promote habitat diversity at Horseshoe Bend, Judd Wildlife Area, Little Foote Forest, Little Sioux Savanna, Jahn Wildlife Area, Nature Center, County ROW • 20+ ac (8.1 ha) of invasive brush to be eliminated at Horseshoe Bend, Little Sioux Savanna, Judd Wildlife Area • Collect over 100 lb (40 kg) of native seed for integration into low-diversity areas • Establishment of a wetland on the western edge of Kenue Park Dickinson County Conservation restoration work will continue into 2018 and beyond as work continues to promote biodiversity and critical pollinator habitat within county-owned land and county rights of ways. In addition to reseeding altered areas, interseeding low-diversity areas, controlling invasive species, and conducting prescribed fires, Dickinson County Conservation is in the early stages of oxbow and wetland restoration projects at Horseshoe Bend, Judd Wildlife Area and Kenue Park, and in the coming years may implement a patch-burn grazing system at the Judd Wildlife Area. Additionally, Dickinson County Conservation provides training in biodiversity- based land management for seasonal and part-time staff with the hope that they will take what they’ve learned and apply it later in their careers. Dickinson County Conservation also holds the annual Bee and Butterfly Festival which brings approximately 600 visitors to the local nature center where participants learn about bees and butterflies and get to tag monarchs. Dickinson County Conservation have guest speakers come and give presentations to the public about pollinators. They also have an indoor bee hive located in the nature center with education on the life cycle and members of the colony. Dickinson County Conservation have a butterfly garden that is maintained, and they are in the process of doing a nature center expansion by adding a room devoted just to pollinators (in the design phase for the building and look to begin fundraising and construction during the summer).

5.8.3.3.5 Fayette County The Fayette County Conservation Board has partnered with Fayette County Pheasants Forever, USDA NRCS, Fayette County Soil and Water Conservation District, NFWF, Living Roadway Trust Fund, and private landowners to implement pollinator conservation projects. Fayette County Conservation and Fayette County Pheasants Forever have cooperated for over 20 years to establish native grasses and forbs throughout the county so adding pollinator habitat is simply an extension of work that is ongoing. In 2015, the Fayette County Conservation Board was engaged in the planting of 307 ac (124 ha) of pollinator habitat on 28 separate landowner’s properties. These plantings were established as part of CRP. In 2016, contract seeding CRP efforts continued. With news spreading that monarchs were in a huge decline, there was increased demand for pollinator habitat seeding. The Fayette County Conservation Board planted 903 ac (365 ac) of pollinator habitat on 48 separate landowner’s properties, and so far for 2017, the Board has requests to seed 804 ac (325 ha) of pollinator habitat for 25 landowners

98 Fayette County Conservation, with its partners, also acquired a 94 ac (38 ha) property in 2016, which included a remnant prairie. The Fritz Prairie property included 46 ac (19 ha) that was planted with a pollinator seed mix and was enhanced with additional common and butterfly milkweed seed. The one mile of adjacent roadsides was seeded to pollinator habitat by Fayette County Roadside Management and were enhanced with additional common milkweed that was harvested from the Gilbertson Nature Center. In 2016, the Fayette County Conservation Board also converted 20 ac (8 ha) of existing vegetation to pollinator habitat. A 12 ac (4.9 ha) field at the Gilbertson Complex, and an 8 ac (3 ha) field at the Houge Farm were seeded with an enhanced pollinator seed mix from Ion Exchange. Additional common milkweed was added to the seed mix at both sites.

5.8.3.3.6 Mitchell County In 2016, the Mitchell County Conservation Board planted 716 ac (290 ha) of CRP/Native Habitat in Mitchell County, which included Iowa Pheasants Forever “Leopold Mixes” (butterfly milkweed, whorled milkweed, prairie milkweed, plus many forage species). In roadsides, 20 ac (8 ha) were planted with a custom mix that included butterfly milkweed and swamp milkweed as well as forage species. Common milkweed comes up readily in these areas and is not included in seed mix. The board held 38 programs on pollinators and monarchs, which reached 763 participants. Additional outreach included a live monarch display at the county fair, which was active for five days, and participation at four local parades, where small packets of pollinators seed mix containing butterfly milkweed, swam milkweed, and other forage species were given away during the parades. Throughout 2016, 186 monarchs were raised and released, of which 168 of the monarchs were tagged.

5.8.3.3.7 Polk County In 2015, the Polk County Conservation Board completed a 0.85 ac (.34 ha) planting, which included seed provided by Monarch Joint Venture. In April, five species of milkweed plugs were added into the same area and an additional 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) was planted by students from Bondurant-Farrar School District. In 2016, the Polk County Conservation Board pollinator conservation efforts spanned the entire year: • In February the board planted 64.2 ac (26.0 ha) of Swan Lake parcel at CBG with Central Midwest Sedge Meadow mix. • In April, 3.5 ac (1.4 ha) along new roadside leading to the Conservation Center was enhanced with diverse native forb mix. • In May, 1.2 ac (0.5 ha) of the Van Oel property at CBG was enhanced with divers native forb mix. • In June, 4.5 ac (1.8 ha) of the Hale parcel at CBG was planted with diverse native grass & forb mix.

99 • In August, a 0.2 ac (0.09 ha) planting was completed at the Bailey-Carpenter parcel with diverse native grass & forb mix. • In December, 69.3 ac (28.0 ha) of Swan Lake parcel at CBG was planted with Central Midwest Sedge Meadow mix, and 79 ac (32 ha) was planted at Shaw parcel at CBG and included use of $26,347 in NFWF pollinator grant dollars. In addition, 10 monarch/pollinator gardens were planted across the Des Moines metro area. Each garden was 300 ft2 (30 m2) and included 18 different natives (including rose/swamp and butterfly milkweed). The board planted a total of 200 plants in each garden. Outreach efforts also included 16 educational programs about pollinators, reaching 490 people. In 2017, several additional projects are scheduled, which will use NFWF pollinator grant funding to supplement the seedlings.

5.8.3.3.8 Ringgold County Ringgold County Conservation Board is very supportive of the Monarch Butterfly mission. The board planted 100+ ac (40 ha) to a pollinator mix by partnering with the USFWS and INHF. The board has also partnered with Blank Park Zoo and their Plant.Grow.Fly program and USFWS to plant educational landscapes around the new Dragoon Trace Nature Center. During the fall of 2016, the board filmed with National Geographic about the migration of the monarch butterfly. The Ringgold County Conservation Board has been participating in tagging butterflies through Monarch Watch for many years. Between 100 to 200 butterflies are tagged each year. About four years ago, a monarch waystation was planted at the Ringgold County Supportive Services, and last summer, the board partnered with ISU Extension and planted a small pollinator garden at Fife’s Grove Park as part of their summer camp.

5.8.3.3.9 Webster County The Webster County Conservation Board office has ordered 715 ac (289 ha) of pollinator mix for landowners over the past three years. Around half of these acres were either planted by conservation staff or else the landowner rented conservation board equipment to do the seeding. The other half was broadcast seeded by local farmer's cooperatives. The board participated in "Hands on Habitat" thru Pheasants Forever with the 3rd Grade from Feelhaver school, reaching 53 students. The board worked with students to plant a 2-ac (0.8-ha) pollinator plot at Kennedy Park. The board also partnered with the Brushy Creek Seed Harvest Unit of the Iowa DNR to host a butterfly tagging event. 5.8.3.4 Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation: 2015 and 2016 NFWF Grants A 2015 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grant was awarded ($249,999) to create new habitat on public lands and permanently protected private lands within the I-35 and I-29 (Loess Hills) corridors in an effort to create “stepping stones” of habitat along the primary migration corridors through Iowa. All the grant funds have been directed towards the purchase of diverse, local ecotype prairie seed for planting on lands owned by County Conservation Boards, Iowa Department of Natural Resources and US Fish and wildlife Service, or on private lands

100 permanently protected. The agencies involved have provided seed and matching funds. Altogether over 2,280 ac (922 ha) of new monarch habitat was planted in this first phase of the project. The second NFWF grant was awarded in 2016 ($150,000) to again purchase seed and establish habitat along the I-35 corridor as well as counties bordering the Mississippi River and on smaller sites within the State Park system. The 2016 grant also supported the removal of eastern red cedar from remnant prairies along the Little Sioux River Valley to allow those native lands to flourish. These grant funds are nearly expended. The third NFWF grant awarded in 2018 ($165,000) will be used for projects along I-35, Loess Hills, Mississippi River and I-380 corridor including the Monarch Research Project in Linn County. An additional 500 new acres (200 ha) of monarch habitat is expected. The three “butterfly flyways” grants are supplemented with an additional 10,000 ac (4,000 ha) of native habitat restoration such as prescribed fire, shrub removal, etc. In total, the average seed cost per acre to establish over 3,100 ac (1,300 ha) of new habitat for monarchs and pollinators is less than $200/acre thanks to the cash and in-kind match provided by the partners. 5.8.3.5 Monarch Watch Monarch Watch has two active monarch conservation programs, the Monarch Waystation Program for encouraging habitat creation for monarchs to produce successive generations and sustain their migration and the Bring Back Monarchs program, which is similar but on a larger scale with a focus on habitat restoration. These programs allow milkweed plugs to be provided, and donations allow most plugs to be free for the cost of shipping. These plugs are grown from seed and are distributed back to the same location as where the seed was collected, keeping the plants in their native regions. Over 200,000 plugs were provided in 2016 with 40,000 of them going to Iowa. 5.8.3.6 Blank Park Zoo

5.8.3.6.1 BPZ: Plant.Grow.Fly. Blank Park Zoo’s (BPZ) Plant.Grow.Fly. program works to increase habitat for pollinators like the iconic monarch butterfly. Now, with over 60 local, regional and national partners, Plant.Grow.Fly. has become a hub for pollinator conservation in Iowa. This project provides information about cultivation of high-quality habitat for novice and expert gardeners alike. Once gardens are planted, they can be registered with the program. Nearly 1200 gardens have been registered, from single pots on porches to entire prairie restorations. These gardens span the Midwest and nation, creating corridors and waystations to help pollinators find the resources they need. Plant.Grow.Fly. at BPZ has lead a coalition of partners to plant a pollinator garden at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Partners include: Edible Outdoors, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Polk County Conservation, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines Park and Recreation, Polk Soil and Water Conservation District, Cherry Glen Learning Farms, Prairie Resource Center, Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge and Prairie Landscapes of Iowa. This garden is a diverse, native bed and serves as a model for thousands who visit the Capitol each year on how they too can provide habitat in urban areas.

101 5.8.3.6.2 BPZ: Monarch Festival Plant.Grow.Fly. hosts an annual Monarch Festival at BPZ. Held in September, during the peak of the monarch’s southern migration, this festival is focused on educating the public about the miraculous journey of the monarch butterfly. The festival includes: crafts and activities, puppet shows, free milkweed seeds and monarch tagging. The event is in partnership with the Latino Heritage Festival, celebrating the Iowa – Mexico connection through the flight path of this butterfly. Mariachi music and traditional Mexican dance are highlights of the day. Children are encouraged to dress up as their favorite insect and march in the Bug Parade, a symbolic journey from the prairie to the mountains of Mexico. 5.8.3.7 Sand County Foundation The Sand County Foundation, Inc. received a NFWF grant award of $268,768 to build capacity within the energy industry to establish high-quality monarch habitat on lands dedicated to energy infrastructure and rights-of-way. This project will incorporate cost-effective habitat restoration strategies into energy industry standards of operation and restore habitat at 400 sites. 5.8.3.8 Resource Conservation and Development for Northeast Iowa Support for native seed supplies was granted to the Resource Conservation and Development for Northeast Iowa, which received $916,758 in NFWF funding for 2016. Over 400 ac (162 ha) of seed banks will be established on public lands surrounding roadways in nine Iowa counties. Seed produced on these lands will be used to establish or enhance monarch habitat on thousands of acres of public land in county parks and roadsides. Partners will also enhance Conservation Reserve Program seed mixes with milkweed and nectar seed for plantings on 10,000 ac (4,000 ha) of agricultural lands.

102 6.0 Adaptive Management As conservation efforts are completed, it’s important to make sure the effort is having the desired effects. Adaptive management is the process of evaluating an effort, learning from the outcomes, and modifying future efforts to increase success all while acknowledging that there are multiple uncertainties related to the habitat and population management for a given species, some of which are known and others which may not yet be recognized. This approach allows changes to be made to a management strategy as needed once new information is acquired (Williams et al. 2009; Williams and Brown 2012). As part of this strategy for recovering monarch butterflies to former levels of abundance, monitoring and research will be used to inform decisions as to whether conservation actions are positively impacting species abundance. As an example of the adaptive management approach needed, one well-recognized adaptive management process is Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC), the philosophy by which the USFWS delivers conservation activities. The SHC is the philosophy of delivering and evaluating conservation in a strategic manner that aims to provide landscapes with sustainable populations of fish, wildlife, and plants (NEAT 2006). The process requires managers to move beyond opportunistic conservation, where conservation decisions are typically disconnected from target species requirements and transparent scientific processes. The SHC is comprised of four elements: biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, and evaluation (Figure 12) (NEAT 2006, Thogmartin et al. 2009). The initial stage of this process, biological planning, is the portion of strategic conservation whereby societal values are articulated in terms of species population goals.

Figure 12. Cycle of Strategic Habitat Conservation as defined by US Fish and Wildlife Service (2008). For monarchs, this strategy reiterates the Tri-national population goal of having an average of 15 ac [6 ha] of overwintering monarchs, which corresponds to a milkweed goal of between 1.3 to 1.8 billion additional stems of milkweed within the northern breeding core as delineated as the North Core region by dark purple in Figure 5 (see section 4.1). Habitat goals for the South Core region have yet to be developed. These regional population goals are translated to habitat objectives through the process of conservation design, a term largely synonymous to conservation planning. Species-habitat and

103 distributional modeling (Niemuth et al. 2005, Thogmartin and Knutson 2007, Thogmartin et al. 2004, 2006, Thogmartin and Knutson 2007) and optimal landscape design (Pearce et al. 2008, Moilanen et al. 2009, Thogmartin et al. 2014) are essential aspects of this element. The models and maps resulting from this stage of SHC identify priority areas and sectors within regions for conservation activity, ostensibly in a manner which optimizes species abundance and prevents contradictory conservation activities. For monarchs, some landscape-scale conservation planning has been conducted (Thogmartin et al. 2017a), but greater specificity at finer spatial and sectoral resolutions is needed. The fundamental objective for milkweed can be achieved by a number of means, each of which may differ by sector, and vary over time depending upon the economic conditions of the setting. The biological planning aspect within Iowa identifies a number of these means objectives (new milkweed stems by sector, for example). In turn, the conservation design phase would evaluate these means objectives. An additional example for Iowa objectives differing by sector would be using mid-contract management options on existing CRP to increase milkweed through burning as compared to planting well-established milkweed plugs in an urban garden greenspace in a downtown setting. Given this design guidance, the conservation delivery element of SHC wields traditional, time- tested habitat and population management techniques to affect population change. Though many sectors may rely on federal funding and programs to deliver conservation, each sector is likely to possess objectives tailored to the specific conservation participants within their sector. This difference, in turn, will influence the means by which conservation delivery occurs and subsequent mechanisms for evaluating conservation action. Nevertheless, each of Iowa’s sectors are expected to participate in the MCD as a method of providing the regional information necessary for determining whether goals have been met in the allotted time span. Although habitat initiatives are most often completed at the local scale, their collective influence is assumed to move populations toward desired levels at a state scale. To assess the correctness of this assumption, evaluation activities, such as outcome-based monitoring, are used to ensure management activities are yielding progress toward goals, and assumption-driven research is conducted to improve future biological planning and conservation design (Sutherland et al. 2004, Lindenmayer and Likens 2010, Martín and Ballard 2010). Taken together, these elements comprise a process for incremental improvement in the status of populations. Ideally, this status improvement is iterative and adaptive, allowing conservation entities to accommodate new stressors, opportunities, and species objectives as they develop (Johnson and Williams 1999, Williams et al. 2007, Lindenmayer and Likens 2009). Similar conservation-related adaptive management processes include Partners-in-Flight’s Five Elements Process (Will et al. 2005), The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation by Design (Poiani et al. 1998, 2000; The Nature Conservancy 2006), the Wildlife Conservation Society’s landscape-species framework (Sanderson et al. 2002), and the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013). 6.1 Plan Revision Numerous uncertainties exist related to monarch biology, threats, and habitat implementation. The strategy will be reviewed and updated annually for several years as additional research becomes

104 available and as conservation efforts are evaluated. After 2022, the strategy will be reviewed every three to five years, or more frequently if needed due to emerging science findings. These findings are expected to be more prevalent between 2018 and 2022 and then may slow as the research focus moves toward questions with longer timeframes needed to provide the answers.

105 6.1.1 Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy Adaptive Management:

6.1.1.1 Biological Planning The current assumption from several sources (Pleasants 2016, Thogmartin et al. 2017a, and Thogmartin et al. 2017b) is that the amount of milkweed stems in the northern breeding core is approximately 1.3 billion and needs to double in order to produce the number of monarchs that would survive the migration to Mexico and overwinter resulting in a population covering an area approximately 15 ac [6 ha] in size. These new milkweed stems should be embedded in a nectar- rich landscape. In Iowa, our goal is to plant seed mixes to grow 160,000,000 additional stems of milkweed in appropriate areas along additional sources of nectar. 6.1.1.2 Conservation Design Conservation delivery will be accomplished through multiple partners across sectors and will require substantial coordination and collaboration. Currently, ISU is leading this coordination effort with 1.5 full time staff equivalents, who supported the creation of the strategy and will continue to aid with its implementation; who coordinate outreach efforts, including the consortium website and social media outlets as well as several print publications and field days; and provide logistical support for consortium business. In addition, Iowa’s goals have been set with certain assumptions that need further validation through research. These assumptions include the probable stem density attainable within various sector classes, that 30 stems of milkweed are always needed to produce one adult monarch that survives the migration to Mexico, and that the proposed stem densities are the driving need to conserve the species (i.e., if there are 1.3 billion additional stems, the monarch population will increase to 15 ac (6 ha) on the overwintering grounds). Each of these assumptions will need further testing, both through short-term research studies and long-term monitoring programs. 6.1.1.3 Conservation Delivery Over the next 20 years, many individuals, organizations, and agencies will be adding milkweed to the landscape. This will be accomplished over multiple sectors. Some locations and methodologies will have higher success rates when compared with others. Capturing the successful addition of milkweed by sector will require voluntary efforts. 6.1.1.4 Conservation Monitoring Citizen science programs currently exist to attempt to evaluate the population status in the northern breeding core. In order for those estimates to have a regional inference, many additional volunteers will be needed. Iowa is committed to assisting with regional inferences through these efforts. It is understood that in order to make Iowa-specific inferences, many additional volunteers will be needed, more than the number needed to assist with regional efforts. While these monitoring efforts continue to grow, success toward reaching the habitat goals described in this strategy will be correlated to the overwintering numbers in Mexico. Progress toward reaching the habitat goals will be tracked in the USFWS MCD. The Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program could provide data to refine demographic, habitat, threats, and other models. If at all possible, in Iowa, data collection methodologies are encouraged to follow existing protocols to allow comparisons between study sites and sectors across the region.

106 Iowa will use data gathered by partners under research and monitoring programs both within Iowa but also in each state to revise the models used to determine the amount of habitat needed in each sector for monarch recovery. For example, if data suggest milkweed stems per acre are actually higher or lower than the current model assumes, Iowa goals could be modified to attempt to move closer to a true estimate of the amount of milkweed on the landscape. If needed, The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium will increase or decrease the target stem density or acreage for our state. While the MCD is expected to track efforts/gains moving forward, another primary need will be to track annual losses in habitat due to land conversion (e.g., urbanization, row crop, etc.). Most likely, these numbers will need to be compiled from various sources (e.g., NASS https://www.nass.usda.gov/, USDA FSA https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/efoia/electronic- reading-room/frequently-requested-information/crop-acreage-data/index, USDA Economic Research Service https://www.ers.usda.gov). 6.1.1.5 Timeline for Strategy Updates and Progress Assessment The strategy will be updated annually through 2022 with additional research and new information. Estimates of progress toward habitat goals will also be made annually using information provided to the USFWS MCD. Those values will be updated as needed based on research and monitoring data. Every three to five years, beginning in 2023, a more rigorous review will assess conservation practices, the appropriateness of the reporting area locations, and progress toward achieving the stated population and habitat goals of this strategy. Data to consider will include monarch overwintering population estimates, habitat acres planted and maintained, conservation practice costs, and new information from research and monitoring projects as related to key assumptions and uncertainties. The habitat conservation practices employed during the previous five years will be evaluated by the consortium working groups based on the practice’s ability to achieve the desired vegetation parameters. Additional factors which will be considered during this review process are listed in Table 8.

107 Table 8. Identified activities or situations that will trigger the adaptive management process or a specific conservation action.

Evaluated Utilized Trigger(s) Evaluation Primary Corrective Spatial Scale Element Information Frequency Action(s) Considered

Overwintering Annual Change in Annually A discussion would be Overwintering Population overwintering hectare size. triggered with the in Mexico Size population Technical Steering estimate Committee to identify based on the cause of the low monitoring estimate. Potential efforts in corrective actions that Mexico. could be taken starting in 2023 would include reprioritization of conservation actions when evaluating landowner offers and adjustment of programmatic recommendations.

Emerging Peer-reviewed New peer Annually Technical Steering Eastern science literature reviewed Committee reviews Monarch articles materials and makes population pertaining to recommendations if aspects of the necessary. conservation strategy, the mitigation framework, or conservation practices become available.

108 Monarch Various Adult counts, Every 5 years Advocate for additional Eastern Abundance monitoring egg and larval beginning in research on most likely Monarch programs densities 2023 cause of continuing Population decline not related to habitat (if habitat is gaining and monarchs are decreasing).

Milkweed Monitoring Stem densities Every 5 years Adjust stem density Eastern stem density and research differing from beginning in estimates for acreages Monarch estimates per data specific to existing 2023. in the States providing Population sector class sector classes. expectation as the data for the proper based upon sector. Thogmartin et al. 2017a.

Habitat Restoration Did not achieve Every 5 years Increase use of actions Evaluated Restoration acreages the 5 year goals beginning in expected to increase both by Goals presented in set forth in this 2023. milkweed stems in the individual MAFWA strategy sector(s) under state and annual consideration, region. monarch determine if other report states have the ability to establish additional habitat.

National Latest Each time new As needed. If impedes a State or Evaluated Policies & information on policy takes Sectors ability to meet both by Programs national effect. goals, discussion as to individual policies & whether other States or state and programs (e.g. sectors could absorb region as Farm Bill) the additional need. needed.

109 Impact of Annual Once a year as Annually Monitoring landcover Evaluated National numbers as various incorporate change with focus on both by Programs reported by agencies grassland wildlife concerns. individual various release reports. loss/conversion Initiate discussions state and national numbers into about how to change region as programs (i.e., gain numbers. policy/impact habitat at needed. NASS, USDA large scale. FSA)

Commodities Latest Major increase As needed. If impedes a State or Evaluated Markets information in in price of Sectors ability to meet both by pricing. commodities. goals, discussion as to individual whether other States or state and sectors could absorb region as the additional need. needed.

Suggested New pesticides New scientific As needed. If impedes a State or Evaluated item: potential to evidence. Sectors ability to meet both by impact nectar goals, discussion as to individual Major shifts in resources in whether other States or state and agricultural habitats sectors could absorb region as technology. adjacent to the additional need. needed. fields.

110

7.0 Budget Summary and Implementation Schedule The following summary represents dollars contributed or awarded as grants to member organizations of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium since its formation in 2015 through 2018. A future version of the strategy will provide an updated budget summary and detail about implementation. In addition to financial support, many collaborators have also generously shared their time and resources in the form of in-kind contributions.

USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant $760,897 UDSA-NRCS-IA Conservation Innovation Grant $75,000 Iowa Soybean Association $86,154 Iowa Pork Producers Association $125,841 ISU Foundation gifts (donations from Consortium Members) $280,000 National Science Foundation $25,000 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to Iowa Dept. of Agriculture and Land Stewardship $227,400 NFWF to Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation $649,999 NFWF to Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation $320,000 NFWF to Sand County Foundation $268,768 NFWF to Resource Conservation and Development for NE Iowa $916,758 USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture $670,675

TOTAL $4,406,492 Additional grants submitted for funding National sponsors $1,250,051

111 8.0 Literature Cited Altizer, S.M., and K.S. Oberhauser. 1999. Effects of the protozoan parasite Ophryocystis elektroscirrha on the fitness of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 74(1):76-88. Altizer, S.M., K.S. Oberhauser, and K.A. Geurts. 2004. Transmission of the protozoan parasite, Ophryocystis elektroscirrha, in monarch butterfly populations: Implications for prevalence and population-level impacts. The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation, 203-218. Anderson, J.B., and L.P. Brower. 1996. Freeze‐protection of overwintering monarch butterflies in Mexico: Critical role of the forest as a blanket and an umbrella. Ecological Entomology 21(2):107- 116. Badgett, G., and A.K. Davis. 2015. Population trends of monarchs at a northern monitoring site: Analysis of 19 years of fall migration counts at Peninsula Point, MI. Annals of the Entomological Society of America DOI: 10.1093/aesa/sav060: sav060. Barker, J.F., and W.S. Herman. 1976. Effect of photoperiod and temperature on the reproduction of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus. Journal of Insect Physiology 22:1565-1568. Bhowmik, P.C., and J.D. Bandeen. 1976. The biology of Canadian weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 56(3):579-589. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps76-094. Bhowmik, P.C. 1994. Biology and control of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) . Reviews of Weed Science 6:227-250. Botías, C., A. David, J. Horwood, A. Abdul-Sada, E. Nicholls, E. Hill, and D. Goulson. 2015. Neonicotinoid residues in wildflowers, a potential route of chronic exposure for bees. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(21):12731–12740. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03459. Botías, C., A. David, E.M. Hill, and D. Goulson. 2016. Contamination of wild plants near neonicotinoid seed-treated crops, and implications for non-target insects. Science of the Total Environment, 566-567:269–278. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.065. Brower, L.P. 1984. Chemical defense in butterflies. Symposia of the Royal Entomological Society of London 11:109-134 Brower, L.P. 1995. Understanding and misunderstanding the migration of the monarch butterfly (Nymphalidae) in North America: 1857-1995. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 49(4):304- 385. Brower, L.P., A. Alonso, S.B. Malcolm, K. Oberhauser, O.R. Taylor, and M.P. Zalucki. 2005. Reduced numbers of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico during the 2004-2005 season: Evidence, possible causes and recommendations. https://www.monarchwatch.org/update/2005/0221_Sci_Adv_Rpt_11.pdf.

112 Brower, A.V.Z., and T.M. Boyce. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA Variation in Monarch Butterflies. Evolution 45:1281-1286.

Brower, L.P., and W.H. Calvert. 1985. Foraging dynamics of bird predators on overwintering monarch butterflies in Mexico. Evolution 39(4):852-868. Brower, L.P., L.S. Fink, R.J. Kiphart, V. Pocius, R.R. Zubieta, and M.I. Ramírez. 2015. Effect of the 2010–2011 drought on the lipid content of Monarchs migrating through Texas to overwintering sites in Mexico. Monarchs in a Changing World: Biology and Conservation of an Iconic Butterfly, 117-129. Cornell University Press. Brower, L.P., D.R. Kust, E. Rendon-Salinas, E.G. Serrano, K.R. Kust, J. Miller, C. Fernandez del Rey, and K. Pape. 2004. Catastrophic winter storm mortality of monarch butterflies in Mexico during January 2002. The Monarch Butterfly: Biology and Conservation, 151-166. Brower, L.P., W.N. Ryerson, L.L. Coppinger, and S.C. Glazier. 1968. Ecological chemistry and the palatability spectrum. Science 161(3848):1349-1350. Brower, L.P., O.R. Taylor, and E.H. Williams. 2012a. Response to Davis: Choosing relevant evidence to assess monarch population trends. Insect Conservation and Diversity 5:327–329. Brower, L.P., O.R. Taylor, E.H. Williams, D.A. Slayback, R.R. Zubieta, and M.I. Ramirez. 2012b. Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: Is the migratory phenomenon at risk? Insect Conservation and Diversity 5(2):95–100. Brower, L.P., D.A Slayback, P. Jaramillo-López, I. Ramirez, K.S. Oberhauser, E.H. Williams, and L.S. Fink. 2016. Illegal Logging of 10 Hectares of Forest in the Sierra Chincua Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Area in Mexico. American Entomologist. http://academics.hamilton.edu/biology/ewilliam/publications/BrowerEA2016AmEnt_IllegalLoggi ng_reduced.pdf. Calvert, W.H., and L.P. Brower. 1981. The importance of forest cover for the survival of overwintering monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus, Danaidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 35:216-225. Calvert, W.H., L.E. Hedrick, and L.P. Brower. 1979. Mortality of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus L.): Avian predation at five overwintering sites in Mexico. Science, 204(4395):847-851. Calvert, W.H., W. Zuchowski, and L.P. Brower. 1983. The effect of rain, snow and freezing temperatures on overwintering monarch butterflies in Mexico. Biotropica: 42-47. Conservation Measures Partnership. 2013. Open standards for the practice of conservation. Version 3.0. Last accessed August 30, 2018. www.conservationmeasures.org. Corn and Soybean Digest. 2015. New seed treatment, high-tech corn coming to market. http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/seed/new-seed-treatment-high-tech-corn-coming-market. David, A., C. Botías, A. Abdul-Sada, E. Nicholls, E.L. Rotheray, E.M. Hill, and D. Goulson. 2016. Widespread contamination of wildflower and bee-collected pollen with complex mixtures of

113 neonicotinoids and fungicides commonly applied to crops. Environment International 88: 169– 178. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.011. Davis, A. 2012. Are migratory monarchs really declining in eastern North America? Examining evidence from two fall census programs. Insect Conservation and Diversity 5:101-105. De Anda, A., and K.S. Oberhauser. 2015. Invertebrate Natural Enemies and Stage-Specific Mortality Rates of Monarch Eggs and Larvae. In Monarchs in a Changing World. Oberhauser, K.S., Nail, R.K., and Altizer, S. (eds.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Pages 60-70. Doubleday, E., and J.O. Westwood. 1846-1852. The genera of diurnal Lepidoptera: Comprising their generic characters, a notice of their habits and transformations, and a catalogue of the species of each genus. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London. Douglas, M.R., and J.F. Tooker. 2015. Large-scale deployment of seed treatments has driven rapid increase in use of neonicotinoid insecticides and preemptive pest management in U.S. field crops. Environmental Science & Technology 49(8):5088–5097. doi: 10.1021/es506141g. DuPont. 2010. Supplemental labeling. DupontTM CoragenR Insect Control. For foliar insect control on artichoke, asparagus, corn (field, pop, sweet), legume vegetables, okra, strawberry, sugarcane, tobacco & tuberous and corm vegetables. R-1070-02810 01-26-10. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Crop Protection, Wilmington, DE. 4 pp. Eilers, L.J., and D.M. Roosa. 1994. The Vascular Plants of Iowa: An Annotated Checklist and Natural History. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Evetts L.L., and O.C. Burnside. 1972. Germination and seedling development of common milkweed and other species. Weed Science 20(4):371-378. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4041979. Evetts, L.L., and O.C. Burnside. 1974. Root distribution and vegetative propagation of Asclepias syriaca L. Weed Research 14(5):283-288. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., S. Wechsler, M. Livingston, and L. Mitchell. 2014. Genetically engineered crops in the United States. U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ERR-162. Fischer, S.J., E.H. Williams, L.P. Brower, and P.A. Palmiotto. 2015. Enhancing monarch butterfly reproduction by mowing fields of common milkweed. American Midland Naturalist173(2):229- 240. Flockhart, D.T., J.B. Pichancourt, D.R. Norris, and T.G. Martin. 2015. Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: Breeding‐season habitat loss drives population declines of monarch butterflies. Journal of Animal Ecology 84(1):155-165. Flockhart, D.T., L.I. Wassenaar, T.G. Martin, K.A. Hobson, M.B. Wunder, and D.R. Norris. 2013. Tracking multi-generational colonization of the breeding grounds by monarch butterflies in eastern North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20131087.

114 Frankie, G.W., R.W. Thorp, M. Schindler, J. Hernandez, B. Ertter, and M. Rizzardi. 2005. Ecological patterns of bees and their host ornamental flowers in t wo northern California cities. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 227-246. Fuller, S., A. Tur, and the New England Cottontail Technical Committee. 2012. Conservation Strategy for the New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis). http://newenglandcottontail.org/sites/default/files/conservation_strategy_final_12-3-12.pdf. Garlick, K.M. 2007. Visual and olfactory sensory systems employed by monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) to locate their milkweed host plants. M.Sc. Queen’s University (Canada), Ann Arbor. Grant, T.J., H.R. Parry, M.P. Zalucki, and S.P. Bradbury. 2018. Predicting monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) movement and egg-laying with a spatially-explicit agent-based model: The role of monarch perceptual range and spatial memory. Ecological Modelling 374: 37-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.02.011. Hartman, R.L. 1986. Asclepiadaceae R. Br., the milkweed family. In T.M. Barkley, ed., Flora of the Great Plains, 614-637. Univ. Kansas Press, Lawrence. Herman, W.S. 1981. Studies on the adult reproductive diapause of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus. Biological Bulletin 160:89-106. Herman, W.S. 1985. Hormonally mediated events in adult monarch butterflies. Marine Science Supplement (Migration Mechanisms and Adaptive Significance. 799-815. Hodgson, E.W., M. Kemis, and B. Geisinger. 2012. Assessment of Iowa soybean growers for insect pest management practices. Journal of Extension 50(4):4RIB6. http://www.joe.org/joe/2012august/pdf/JOE_v50_4rb6.pdf. Hodgson, E.W., and G. VanNostrand. 2016. Soybean aphid efficacy screening program, 2015. Arthropod Management Tests. Section F: Field & Cereal Crops. 1–3. doi: 10.1093/amt/tsw041. Housel, G. 2015. Assessing the Milkweed (Asclepias spp.) Seed Marketplace in Iowa. https://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/MJV_Report_Milkweed_Market.pdf. Hladik, M.L., D.W. Kolpin, and K.M. Kuivila. 2014. Widespread occurrence of neonicotinoid insecticides in streams in a high corn and soybean producing region, USA. Environmental Pollution 193:189–196. Inamine, H., S.P. Ellner, J.P. Springer, and A.A. Agrawal. 2016. Linking the continental migratory cycle of the monarch butterfly to understand its population decline. Oikos. At Press. Iowa State University Extension. 2008. Introduction to Iowa native prairie plants. SUL 18. Iowa DNR. 2015. Iowa Wildlife Action Plan: Securing a future for fish and wildlife. K. Reeder and J. Clymer, eds. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines Iowa, USA. http://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Iowas-Wildlife/Iowa-Wildlife-Action-Plan.

115 Jepsen, S., D.F. Schweitzer, B. Young, N. Sears, M. Ormes, and S.H. Black. 2015. Conservation status and ecology of the monarch butterfly in the United States. NatureServe, Arlington, VA, and Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland OR. 36 pp. Johnson, F., and K. Williams. 1999. Protocol and practice in the adaptive management of waterfowl harvests. Conservation Ecology 3(1):8. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss1/art8. Kaul, R.B., S.B. Rolfsmeier, and J.J. Esch. 1991. The Distribution and Reproductive Phenology of the Milkweeds (Asclepiadaceae: Asclepias and Cynanchum) in Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. Paper 152. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/152. Koch, R.L., W.D. Hutchison, R.C. Venette, and G.E. Heimpel. 2003. Susceptibility of immature monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Danainae), to predation by Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biological Control 28:265-270. Krischik, V., M. Rogers, G. Gupta, and A. Varshney. 2015. Soil-applied imidacloprid translocates to ornamental flowers and reduces survival of adult Coleomegilla maculata, Harmonia axyridis, and Hippodamia convergens lady beetles, and larval Danaus plexippus and Vanessa cardui butterflies. PLoS ONE, 10(3):1–22. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119133. Krupke, C.H., G.J. Hunt, B.D. Eitzer, G. Andino, and K. Given. 2012. Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLoS ONE, 7(1). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029268. Lindenmayer, D.B., and G.E. Likens. 2009. Adaptive monitoring: A new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:482–486. Lindenmayer, D.B., and G.E. Likens. 2010. The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation 143:1317–1328. Locke, C., E. Meils, and M. Murray. 2016. The Wisconsin Pollinator Protection Plan. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. https://datcp.wi.gov/Documents/PPPComplete.pdf. Long, E.Y., and C.H. Krupke. 2016. Non-cultivated plants present a season-long route of pesticide exposure for honey bees. Nature Communications 7(May), 11629. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11629. Lowenstein, D.M., K.C. Matteson, I. Xiao, A.M. Silva, and E.S. Minor. 2014. Humans, bees, and pollination services in the city: The case of Chicago, IL (USA). Biodiversity and conservation 23(11):2857-2874. Lutz, R.W. 2016. Milkweeds. http://iowaplants.com/flora/family/Apocynaceae/asclepias/Asclepias.html.

116 Lyons, J.I., A.A. Pierce, S.M. Barribeau, E.D. Sternberg, A.J. Mongue, and J.C. De Roode. 2012. Lack of genetic differentiation between monarch butterflies with divergent migration destinations. Molecular Ecology 21: 3433 – 3444. Malcolm, S.B. 1995. Milkweeds, monarch butterflies and the ecological significance of cardenolides. Chemoecology 5/6:101-117. Malcolm, S.B., B.J. Cockrell, and L.P. Brower. 1989. Cardenolide fingerprint of monarch butterflies reared on common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca. L. Journal of Chemical Ecology 15(3):819-853. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01015180. Malcolm, S.B., B.J. Cockrell, and L.P. Brower. 1993. Spring recolonization of eastern North America by the monarch butterfly: Successive brood or single sweep migration? Pp 253-267 in S.B. Malcolm and M.P. Zalucki, eds. Biology and Conservation of the Monarch Butterfly. Science Series No. 38, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. California. Marks, P.L. 1983. On the origin of field plants of the northeastern United States. The American Naturalist 122(2)210-228. Martín, E., and G. Ballard. 2010. Data management best practices and standards for biodiversity data applicable to bird monitoring data. U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Monitoring Subcommittee. http://www.nabci-us.org. McLaughlin, R.E., and J. Myers. 1970. Ophryocystis elektroscirrha sp. n., a neogregarine pathogen of the monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus (L.) and the Florida queen butterfly D. gilippus berenice Cramer. The Journal of Protozoology, 17(2):300-305. Meissen, J.C., S.M. Galatowitsch, M.W. Cornett. 2017. Assessing long-term risks of prairie seed harvest: What is the role of life-history? Botany 95(11):1081-1092. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb- 2017-0069. Miller, N.G., L.I. Wassenaar, K.A. Hobson and D. R. Norris. 2012. Migratory connectivity of the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus): Patterns of spring re-colonization in Eastern North America. PLoS ONE 7(3): e31891. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 2013. Insect Pollinator Best Management Practices for Minnesota Yards and Gardens. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/inline- files/pollinatoryardbmps.pdf. Moilanen, A., K.A. Wilson, and H. Possingham. 2009. Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK . Monarch Watch. 2016. Bring Back the Monarchs. http://monarchwatch.org/bring-back-the- monarchs/campaign/the-details. Monarch Watch. 2017. Monarch Watch Monarch Waystation Certification Requirements. http://www.monarchwatch.org/waystations/waystation_application.pdf.

117 Monarch Watch. 2018. Monarch Population Status. http://monarchwatch.org/blog/category/monarch-population-status/. Nail, K.R., R.V. Batalden, K.S. Oberhauser. 2015. What's too hot and what's too cold? Lethal and sub-lethal effects of extreme temperatures on developing monarchs. In Monarchs in a Changing World. Oberhauser, K.S., Nail, R.K., and Altizer, S. (eds.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Pages 99-108. The Nature Conservancy. 2006. Conservation by design: A strategic framework for mission success. Arlington, VA. https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/cbd/Pages/default.aspx. NEAT (National Ecological Assessment Team). 2006. Strategic habitat conservation: A report from the National Ecological Assessment Team—June 29, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, and U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. https://www.fws.gov/nc- es/habreg/NEAT_FinalRpt.pdf. Niemuth, N.D., M.E. Estey, and C.R. Loesch. 2005. Developing spatially explicit habitat models for grassland bird conservation planning in the Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota. In: Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. C.J. Ralph and T.D. Rich (eds.) USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Pages 469–477. Oberhauser, K.S., M. Anderson, S. Anderson, W. Caldwell, A. De Anda, M. Hunter, M.C. Kaiser, and M.J. Solensky. 2015. Lacewings, wasps, and flies—oh my: Insect enemies take a bite out of monarchs. In Monarchs in a Changing World. Oberhauser, K.S., Nail, R.K., and Altizer, S. (eds.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Pages 71-82. Paola, O.A., and I. Kaplan. 2015. Non-target effects of agrochemicals on milkweed and monarch butterflies. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America, Nov 15–18, Minneapolis, MN. Pearce J.L., D.A. Kirk, C.P. Lane. M.H. Mahr, J. Walmsley, D. Casey, J.E. Muir, S. Hannon, A. Hansen, and K. Jones. 2008. Prioritizing avian conservation areas for the Yellowstone to Yukon Region of North America. Biological Conservation 141:908–924. Pecenka, J.R., and J.G. Lundgren. 2015. Non-target effects of clothianidin on monarch butter-flies. Science and Nature 102:19. Pfister, J.A., F.D. Provenza, K.E. Panter, B.L. Stegelmeier, and K.L. Launchbaugh. 2002. Risk management to reduce livestock losses from toxic plants. Journal of range management 291-300. Pisa, L.W., V. Amaral-Rogers, L.P. Belzunces, J.M. Bonmatin, C.A. Downs, D. Goulson, D.P. Kreutzweiser, C. Krupke, M. Liess, M. McField, C.A. Morrissey, D.A. Noome, J. Settele, N. Simon-Delso, J.D. Stark, J.P. Van der Sluijs, H. Van Dyck, and M. Wiemers. 2014. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 22:68–102.

118 Pleasants, J.M. 2015. Monarch butterflies and agriculture. In Monarchs in a Changing World. Oberhauser, K.S., Nail, R.K., and Altizer, S. (eds.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Pages 169-178. Pleasants, J.M., E.H. Williams, L.P. Brower, K.S. Oberhauser, and O.R. Taylor. 2016. Conclu-sion of no decline in summer monarch population not supported. Annals Entomological Soc. Amer. 0:1-3. Pleasants, J.M., and K.S. Oberhauser. 2012. Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on the monarch butterfly. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6:135–144. doi. 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x. Pleasants J.M., and K.S. Oberhauser. 2013. Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: Effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6:135– 144. Pocius, V.M., D.M. Debinski, J.M. Pleasants, K.G. Bidne, R.L. Hellmich, and L.P. Brower. 2017. Milkweed matters: Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) survival and development on nine Midwestern milkweed species. Environmental Entomology 46(5):1098-1105. Pocius, V.M., D.M. Debinski, J.M. Pleasants, K.G. Bidne, R.L. Hellmich. 2018. Monarch butterflies do not lay all of their eggs in one basket: Oviposition on nine Midwestern milkweed species. Ecosphere 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2064. Pocius, V.M., J.M. Pleasants, D.M. Debinski, K.G. Bidne, R.L. Hellmich, S.P. Bradbury, and S.L. Blodgett. In Press. Monarch Butterflies Show Differential Utilization of Nine Midwestern Milkweed Species. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. Poiani, K.A., J.V. Baumgartner, S.C. Buttrick, S.L. Green, E. Hopkins, G.D. Ivey, K.P. Seaton, and R.D. Sutter. 1998. A scale-independent, site conservation planning framework in The Nature Conservancy. Landscape and Urban Planning 43:143–156. Poiani, K.A., B.D. Richter, M.G. Anderson, and H.E. Richter. 2000. Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: Functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133–146. Prysby, M.D. 2004. Natural enemies and survival of monarch eggs and larvae. The monarch butterfly: Biology and conservation Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 27-38. Ramirez, M.I., C. Saenz-Romero, G. Rehfeldt, and L. Salas-Canela. 2015. Threats to the availability of overwintering habitat in the monarch butterfly biosphere reserve: Land use and climate change. In Monarchs in a Changing World. Oberhauser, K.S., Nail, R.K., and Altizer, S. (eds.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Pages 157-168. Riley, C.V. 1878. Migratory butterflies. Scientific American 38(14):215. Riley, C.V. 1880. The migration of butterflies. Am. Entomology (New series) 1: 100-102.

119 Sanderson, E.W., K.H. Redford, A. Vedder, P.B. Coppolillo, and S.E. Ward. 2002. A conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirements. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:41–56. Save Our Monarchs. 2018. Common Monarch Ailments 101. https://www.saveourmonarchs.org/som-blog/whats-wrong-with-my-monarch-101. Schulz, L. 2014. Iowa State University Extension Publication. Iowa Beef Center -- 2014 Feedlot Operator Survey. https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/14192. Sears, M.K., R.L. Hellmich, D.E. Stanley-Horn, K.S. Oberhauser, J.M. Pleasants, H.R. Matilla, B.D. Siegfried, and G.P. Dively. 2001. Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proc. National Academy Science 98:11937-11942. Goulson D. 2013. An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:977–987. Semmens, B.X., D.J. Semmens, W.E. Thogmartin, R. Wiederholt, L. Lopez-Hoffman, J.E. Diffendorfer, J.M. Pleasants, K.S. Oberhauser, and O.R. Taylor. 2016. Quasi-extinction risk and population targets for the Eastern, migratory population of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) Scientific Reports 6. doi:10.1038/srep23265. Shannon, H.J. 1916. Insect migration as related to those of birds. Scientific Monthly 1916: 227- 240. Smith, D.D. 1998. Iowa Prairie: Original Extent and Loss, Preservation and Recovery Attempts. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 105:94-108. Sutherland, W.J., A. S. Pullin, P.M. Dolman, and T.M. Knight. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:305–308. Taylor, C., J. Lovett, and A. Ryan. 2016. Is the monarch decline due to an increase in mortality during the fall migration? http://monarchwatch.org/blog/. Thogmartin, W.E., M.G. Knutson, and J.R. Sauer. 2006. Predicting regional abundance of rare grassland birds with a hierarchical spatial count model. American Ornithological Society 108(1):25-46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4123194?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Thogmartin, W.E., S.M. Crimmins, and J. Pearce. 2014. Prioritizing bird conservation actions in the prairie hardwood transition of the midwestern United States. Biological Conservation 176:212‒ 223. Thogmartin, W.E., J.A. Fitzgerald, and M.T. Jones. 2009. Conservation design: Where do we go from here? In Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Birds, Habitats and People. Rich, T.D., C. Arizmendi, D. Demarest and C. Thompson (eds.). Proceedings of the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference, 13-16 February 2008. McAllen, Texas, USA. Partners in Flight. Pages 426-436. Thogmartin, W.E., J.R. Sauer, and M.G. Knutson. 2004. A hierarchical spatial model of avian abundance with application to cerulean warblers. Ecological Applications 14:1766-1779. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/03-5247.

120 Thogmartin, W.E., and M.G. Knutson. 2007. Scaling local species-habitat relations to the larger landscape with a hierarchical spatial count model. Landscape Ecology 22:61–75. Thogmartin, W.E., L. López-Hoffman, J. Rohweder, J. Diffendorfer, R. Drum, D. Semmens, S. Black, I. Caldwell, D. Cotter, P. Drobney, L.L. Jackson, M. Gale, D. Helmers, S. Hilburger, E. Howard, K. Oberhauser, J. Pleasants, B. Semmens, O. Taylor, P. Ward, J. Weltzin, and R. Wiederholt. 2017a. Restoring monarch butterfly habitat in the Midwestern US: “All hands on deck.” Environmental Research Letter 12(7):074005. Thogmartin, W.E., R. Wiederhold, K. Oberhauser, R.G. Drum, J.E. Diffendorfer, S. Altizer, O.R. Taylor, J. Pleasants, D. Semmens, B. Semmens, R. Erickson, K. Libby, and L. Lopez-Hoffman. 2017b. Monarch butterfly population decline in North America: Identifying the threatening processes. Royal Society Open Science DOI: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/9/170760. University of Tennessee Extension. 2016. 2016 Insect control recommendations for field crops. PB. 1768. https://extension.tennessee.edu/publications/Pages/default.aspx. University of Wisconsin Extension. 2018. Herbicide rotation restrictions in forage and cover cropping systems. https://wcws.webhosting.cals.wisc.edu/wp- content/uploads/sites/96/2013/03/WCWS_201_Herbicide_Rotation_Restrictions_WEB.pdf. Urquhart, F., and N. Urquhart. 1976. The overwintering site of the eastern population of the monarch butterfly (Danaus p. plexippus; Danaidae) in southern Mexico. Journal of the Lepidopterist’s Society 30:153-158. Urquhart, F., and N. Urquhart. 1978. Autumnal migration routes of the eastern population of the monarch butterfly (Danaus p. plexippus L.; Danaidae; Lepidoptera) in North America to the overwintering site in the Neovolcanic Plateau of Mexico. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56:1759- 1764. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). 2012. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. USDA launches new conservation effort to aid monarch butterflies. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/newsroom/releases/?cid=nrcseprd41482 1. USDA NRCS. 2018. Conservation Reserve Program. MCM Job Sheet. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/OH/FINAL_41_MCMInterseedingForbPlugs_js_2 018.pdf. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Strategic Habitat Conservation Handbook: A guide to implementing the technical elements of Strategic Habitat Conservation (Version 1.0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. https://www.fws.gov/landscape- conservation/pdf/SHCHandbook.pdf.

121 USFWS. 2014a. Monarch Butterfly Listing Petition. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/invertebrates/pdfs/Monarch_ESA_Petition.pdf. USFWS. 2014b. Monarch Butterfly, Status Review. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R3-ES-2014-0056-0001. USFWS. 2017. Endangered Species. Laws & Policies | Regulations and Policies. https://www.fws.gov/Endangered/laws-policies/regulations-and-policies.html. USG. 2015. Pollinator Research Action Plan. U.S. Government. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pollinator_research_action _plan_2015.pdf. Wassenaar, L.I., and K.A. Hobson. 1998. Natal origins of migratory monarch butterflies at wintering colonies in Mexico: New isotopic evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95:15436–15439. Wiesemeyer, J., and R. Bernard. 2016. USDA may shift CRP contract starts if enrollment cap hit. http://www.profarmer.com/article/usda-may-shift-crp-contract-starts-if-enrollment-cap-hit-naa- jim-wiesemeyer--roger-bernard/. Will, T.C, J.M. Ruth, K.V. Rosenberg, D. Krueper, D. Hahn, J. Fitzgerald, R. Dettmers, and C.J. Beardmore. 2005. The five elements process: Designing optimal landscapes to meet bird conservation objectives. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 1. Williams, B.K., and E.D. Brown. 2012. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Applications Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. https://www2.usgs.gov/sdc/doc/DOI-Adaptive-Management- Applications-Guide-27.pdf. Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. https://www2.usgs.gov/sdc/doc/DOI-%20Adaptive%20ManagementTechGuide.pdf. Williams, D.W., L.L. Jackson and D.D. Smith. 2007. Effects of frequent mowing on survival and persistence of forbs seeded into a species-poor grassland. Restoration Ecology 15:24-33. World Wildlife Fund. 2017. New study shows 27% decrease in area occupied by monarch butterflies. https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/new-study-shows-27-decrease-in-area-occupied- by-monarch-butterflies accessed February 23, 2017. Woodson, R.E., Jr. 1954. The North American Species of Asclepias L. Annuals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 41:1-211. Wright, C.K., and M.C. Wimberly. 2013. Recent land use changes in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:4134- 4139. Xerces Society. 2016. Monarch Conservation. http://www.xerces.org/monarchs/.

122 Zahn, S., W. Zhang, K. Niiepold, J. Hsu, J.F. Haeger, M.P. Zalucki, S. Altizer, J.C. de Roode, S.M. Reppert, and M.R. Kronforst. 2014. The genetics of monarch butterfly migration and warning coloration. Nature. 514:317-321. Doi:10.1038/nature13812. Zalucki, M.P., H.R. Parry, and J.M. Zalucki. 2016. Movement and egg laying in monarchs: To move or not to move, that is the equation. Austral Ecology 41:154-167. Zalucki, M.P., and J.H. Lammers, 2010. Dispersal and egg shortfall in monarch butterflies: What happens when the matrix is cleaned up? Ecological Entomology 35:84-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01160.x.

9.0 Appendices 9.1 Appendix A: Technical Committee Members Ed Anderson, ISA Seth Appelgate, ISU Pamela Bachman, Monsanto Chad Boeckman, Corteva Agriscience Steve Bradbury, ISU Aaron Brees, Iowa DNR Carol Brown, Iowa Soybean Association James Cronin, USDA NRCS (ex officio) Grover Depriest, USDA (ex officio) Catherine Delong, SWCS Matt Deppe, ICA Jean Eells, Women, Food and Agriculture Network Josh Divan, Pheasants Forever Curt Goettsch, USDA FSA (ex officio) Ben Gleason, ICGA Jim Gulliford, SWCS Theo Gunther, ISA Lisa Hein, INHF Doug Helmers, USFWS (ex officio) Jon Hubbert, USDA NRCS (ex officio) Rex Johnson, Iowa DNR Karen Kinkead, Iowa DNR Susan Kozak, IDALS Sheila Larson, Iowa Turkey Federation Clare Lindahl, SWCS Jessie Lowry, Blank Park Zoo Pat McGonegle, Iowa Pork Producers Association Joe McGovern, INHF Kraig McPeek, USFWS (ex officio) Scott Moats, TNC- Iowa Chapter

123 Kristine Nemec, University of Northern Iowa Tallgrass Prairie Center Gregg Pattison, USFWS (ex officio) Jacque Pohl, ISU Katy Reeder, Iowa DNR Rick Robinson, IFBF Eric Sachs, Monsanto Dana Schweitzer, ISU Stephanie Shepherd, Iowa DNR John Whitaker, USDA FSA (ex officio)

9.2 Appendix B: PECE Process Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts, Federal Register 68, pages 15114-15115).

PECE policy (FR68 pages 15114-15115)

Evaluation Criteria Conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, and similar documents generally identify numerous conservation efforts (i.e., actions, activities, or programs) to benefit the species. In determining whether a formalized conservation effort contributes to forming a basis for not listing a species, or for listing a species as threatened rather than endangered, evaluation must be done to determine whether the conservation effort improves the status of the species under the act. Two factors are key in that evaluation: (1) for those efforts yet to be implemented, the certainty that the conservation effort will be implemented and (2) for those efforts that have not yet demonstrated effectiveness, the certainty that the conservation effort will be effective. Because the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of formalized conservation efforts may vary, each effort will be evaluated individually and will use the following criteria to direct analysis.

A. The certainty that the conservation effort will be implemented: 1. The conservation effort, the party(ies) to the agreement or plan that will implement the effort, and the staffing, funding level, funding source, and other resources necessary to implement the effort are identified. 2. The legal authority of the party(ies) to the agreement or plan to implement the formalized conservation effort, and the commitment to proceed with the conservation effort are described. 3. The legal procedural requirements (e.g. environmental review) necessary to implement the effort are described, and information is provided indicating that fulfillment of these requirements does not preclude commitment to the effort. 4. Authorizations (e.g., permits landowner permission) necessary to implement the conservation effort are identified, and a high level of certainty is provided that the party(ies) to the agreement or plan that will implement the effort will obtain these authorizations. 5. The type and level of voluntary participation (e.g., number of landowners allowing entry to their land, or number of participants agreeing to change timber management practices and acreage involved) necessary to implement the conservation effort is identified, and a high level of certainty is provided that the party(ies) to the agreement or plan that will implement the conservation effort

124 will obtain that level of voluntary participation (e.g., an explanation of how incentives to be provided will result in the necessary level of voluntary participation). 6. Regulatory mechanisms (e.g., laws, regulations, ordinances) necessary to implement the conservation effort are in place. 7. A high level of certainty is provided that the party(ies) to the agreement or plan that will implement the conservation effort will obtain the necessary funding. 8. An implementation schedule (including incremental completion dates) for the conservation effort is provided. 9. The conservation agreement or plan that includes the conservation effort is approved by all parties to the agreement or plan.

B. The certainty that the conservation effort will be effective: 1. The nature and extent of threats being addressed by the conservation effort are described, and how the conservation effort reduces the threats is described. 2. Explicit incremental objectives for the conservation effort and dates for achieving them are stated. 3. The steps necessary to implement the conservation effort are identified in detail. 4. Quantifiable, scientifically valid parameters that will demonstrate achievement of objectives, and standards for these parameters by which progress will be measured, are identified. 5. Provisions for monitoring and reporting progress on implementation (based on compliance with the implementation schedule) and effectiveness (based on evaluation of quantifiable parameters) of the conservation effort are provided. 6. Principles of adaptive management are incorporated.

These criteria should not be considered comprehensive evaluation criteria. The certainty of implementation and effectiveness of a formalized conservation effort may also depend on species- specific, habitat-specific, location-specific, and effort-specific factors. All appropriate factors will be considered while evaluating formalized conservation efforts. The specific circumstances will also determine the amount of information necessary to satisfy these criteria.

To consider that a formalized conservation effort(s) contributes to forming a basis for not listing a species or listing a species as threatened rather than endangered, it must be determined that the conservation effort is sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective so as to have contributed to the elimination or adequate reduction of one or more threats to the species identified through the section 4(a)(1) analysis. The elimination or adequate reduction of section 4(a)(1) threats may lead to a determination that the species does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered, or is threatened rather than endangered. An agreement or plan may contain numerous conservation efforts, not all of which are sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective. Those conservation efforts that are not sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective cannot contribute to a determination that listing is unnecessary or a determination to list as threatened rather than endangered. Regardless of the adoption of a conservation agreement or plan, however, if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate that the species meets the definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened species’’ on the day of the listing decision, then appropriate rule-making activity will proceed under section 4 of the ESA.

125 9.3 Appendix C: Pre-Listing Conservation Options Pre-listing plans are designed to address habitat conservation for a species prior to potential listing (i.e., candidate species being reviewed for potential listing or species determined to be warranted for listing but currently precluded from listing). Pre-listing programs can be designed to preclude the need for listing. If the species is ultimately listed, future conservation management requirements for an incidental take permit may provide more options, as compared to a situation where no pre-listing conservation activities were undertaken. Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) - Similar in substance to a HCP, CCAs typically focus on federal landowners. Because federal landowners are part of the agreement, USFWS cannot provide assurances of no regulatory surprises in the future if the species is listed (USFWS can only provide assurances to non-federal landowners). Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) - CCAAs only apply to non- federal landowners. The USFWS will issue an Enhancement of Survival Permit (a type of incidental take permit) upon approval of a CCAA. The conservation measures are designed to preclude the need for listing assuming other landowners in the species’ range adopted the same measures. In CCAAs there are assurances of no regulatory surprises if the species is listed in the future. Pre-Listing Conservation Action (PCA) – A PCA provides incentives for landowners to conserve candidate species that are not yet listed under the ESA. Landowners can earn credits, which can be redeemed later or sold to a third party later if the species becomes listed. PCAs can include federal and non-federal landowners; however, these actions must be administered through a state agency. The conservation measures must be beneficial to the candidate species, but they are not as exacting as those specified in a CCA or CCAA because a PCA alone may not be sufficient to ensure recovery of the species. Conservation measures in PCAs do not carry regulatory assurances. If the candidate species is listed, conservation achieved through measures undertaken in a PCA may serve as a mitigation or compensatory measure in a future HCP and resultant incidental take permit. More detail is available on the USFWS site.41 Post-Listing Conservation Options Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) – These plans are required as part of an application to the USFWS for an incidental take permit. Conservation measures are required to minimize and mitigate take to the maximum extent practicable; the taking should not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival or recovery of the species. Upon approval of a plan, state and private landowners are assured that if unforeseen circumstances arise, the USFWS will not require participants to comply with additional land-use restrictions for the duration of the permit, without prior consent.

41 https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/prelisting-conservation.html

126 Safe Harbor Agreements for Private Landowners – This program also results in the issuance of a permit but is more appropriate for a scenario where a landowner wishes to voluntarily implement habitat conservation that will support recovery of the species and may attract a listed species to the property. When approved by the USFWS, the landowner’s permit (an Enhancement of Survival Permit, a type of incidental take permit) protects them from unlawful take during the life of the permit and allows them to lawfully return the land to its original condition after the permit expires. Conservation Banks – Land acquired and developed for the species of interest is permanently protected land that can be used as credit for adverse effects to a species for activities that may occur on other land. A conservation bank agreement precludes future development of the property and restricts certain land uses; establishes a long-term management plan; and provides funding for monitoring and long-term management of the bank through establishment of a non-wasting endowment. Conservation banks can apply to federal, state, county or private land; private land typically being permanently donated to a land trust or non-profit conservation organization or sold to a county, state or federal governmental agency. Some state and local governments offer tax benefits associated with this type of property encumbrance.

127 9.4 Appendix D: Iowa Milkweed Species Reproduced from Lutz (2016) (Used with permission from IowaPlants.com, Milkweeds page). Common Species of Milkweed

http://iowaplants.com/flora/family/Apocynaceae/asclepias/large_images/CommonMilkweed.ht ml Asclepias syriaca - Common milkweed. This is probably the most numerous milkweed in Iowa. It is tall—often chest high, broad-leaved, petiolate, and the pods (fruit) are distinctly papillose. While it is numerous, its distribution is not uniform and in some regions of Iowa it may be outnumbered by other species.

http://iowaplants.com/flora/family/Apocynaceae/asclepias/large_images/SandMilkweed.html Asclepias amplexicaulis - Sand milkweed. Sandy soils are the preferred habitat for this milkweed. It is medium height—about knee high, although sometimes prostrate. Its broadleaves clasp the stem at their base and may overlap. The rounded inflorescence heads are more open than those of other local milkweeds

http://iowaplants.com/flora/family/Apocynaceae/asclepias/large_images/SwampMilkweed.htm l Asclepias incarnata - Swamp milkweed. One of Iowa's two most colorful milkweeds, this one is tall and prefers swampy or marshy areas in full sun. Flowers appear light pink to a rose and white mix. Leaves are narrow and abundant along the stem.

Asclepias_tuberosa - Butterfly milkweed. Probably Iowa's most colorful milkweed—its orange colored inflorescence is popular in Iowa's gardens. It is a medium sized native plant which is at home in sunny mesic prairies. Its leaves are narrow, the fruit is slender and stands upright on the plant.

128 http://iowaplants.com/flora/family/Apocynaceae/asclepias/large_images/WhorledMilkweed.ht ml Asclepias_verticillata - Whorled milkweed. A medium sized milkweed, about knee high, with white flowers and slender grass-like leaves. The sessile leaves are often attached to the stem in whorls. It is often found along roadsides, in old pastures and along the edge of woodlands— usually in sandy soils. Uncommon Species

http://iowaplants.com/flora/family/Apocynaceae/asclepias/large_images/PurpleMilkweed.html Asclepias_purpurascens - Purple milkweed. Only occasionally seen in Iowa.

http://iowaplants.com/flora/family/Apocynaceae/asclepias/large_images/PokeMilkweed.html Asclepias_exaltata - Poke milkweed. Only occasionally seen in Iowa, most frequently seen in eastern Iowa. Asclepias_engelmanniana - Engelmann's milkweed. At this writing it is listed as ENDANGERED in Iowa. However, a recent re-examination, at the Ada Hayden Herbarium of the few specimens so named, found them to be A. stenophylla and the examiners have concluded that A. engelmanniana does not exist in Iowa. Asclepias_stenophylla - Narrow-leaved milkweed. Only a few individuals have been seen in western Iowa, which is at the north-eastern edge of its current range. Mature plants are from 2 to 4 feet high with slender stems and leaves. inflorescences are umbels of greenish-white flowers arising from leaf axils. They are found in sandy or rocky soils. Asclepias_lanuginosa - Woolly milkweed. Only occasionally seen and is THREATENED in Iowa. Asclepias_speciosa - Showy milkweed. Only occasionally seen and is THREATENED in Iowa. Asclepias hirtella - Tall Green milkweed. Only occasionally seen in Iowa. Asclepias_meadii - Mead’s milkweed. Only occasionally seen in Iowa. Asclepias_ovalifolia - Oval-leaf milkweed. Only occasionally seen in Iowa.

129 http://iowaplants.com/flora/family/Apocynaceae/asclepias/large_images/FourleafMilkweed.ht ml Asclepias_quadrifolia - Fourleaf Milkweed. Only occasionally seen in Iowa. Asclepias_sullivantii - Sullivant's milkweed. Only occasionally seen in Iowa. Eilers and Roosa (1994) describe it as infrequent to rare throughout most of the state. It resembles A. syriaca (common milkweed), but is smaller and slimmer. It tends to hold its leaves at an upward angle, its leaves and stems are less hairy, and its pods have fewer papillae. Asclepias_viridiflora - Green milkweed. Only occasionally seen in Iowa.

130 9.5 Appendix E: Common Native Prairie Forbs in Iowa Common forbs in Iowa for monarch habitat enhancement (Iowa State University Extension 2008).

April May June July August September October

Golden Alexander (WM/M)*

Spiderwort (M/WM)

Shooting Star (M/DM)

Prairie Smoke (M/D)

Plains Tickseed (DM)

Pale Purple Coneflower (M)

Butterfly Milkweed (M)

Swamp Milkweed (W)

Partridge Pea (M)

Lead Plant (DM)

Purple Prairie Clover (M)

Wild Petunia (M)

Gray-headed Coneflower (M)

Black-eyed Susan (M)

Purple Coneflower (M)

Wild Bergamot (M)

White Prairie Clover (M/DM)

Round-headed Bushclover (M/DM)

Rattlesnake Master (M/DM)

False Sunflower (M/WM)

Canada Goldenrod (M)

Prairie Blazing Star (M)

Rough Blazing Star (M/DM)

Cardinal Flower (W)

Great Blue Lobelia (WM/W)

Compass Plant (M)

Bottle Gentian (M)

Stiff Goldenrod (M)

New England Aster (M)

*W=Wet WM=Wet M=Mesic DM=Dry Mesic

131 9.6 Appendix F: Explanation of Sector Targets In 2015 the United States Government set a goal of increasing the population of overwintering adult monarchs to 225 million by 2020 (USG 2015). Current estimates of new monarch habitat needed to reach this goal are expressed in terms of the number of new milkweed stems established in the North Central states over the next 20 years. These estimates range from 1.3 to 1.6 billion new stems (see Thogmartin et al. 2017a and references cited therein). The Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies42, which is coordinating development of the Mid-America Monarch Conservation Strategy, has set a goal of 1.3 billion new stems for the northern breeding core area of the monarch. Iowa falls entirely within the area. Within the context of this multi-state strategy, the consortium met on January 19, 2018, and reached consensus on land cover category-specific objectives to reach the Iowa goal of 160,000,000 new milkweed stems over the next 20 years, which represents 12.3% of the North Central states’ overall goal. During the summer and fall of 2017, a consortium workgroup, with ex officio support from US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff, developed habitat targets for the following land cover/land-use categories in Iowa: • Urban/suburban • Road rights-of-ways (secondary roads) • State, county and federal (Public Lands) • Other USFWS and USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service program lands (Other) • Agriculture The consortium met on January 19, 2018, and reached consensus on land cover category-specific objectives to reach the Iowa goal of 160,000,000 new milkweed stems (see Table A1). The combined, category-specific objectives are estimated to establish between 127,000,000 to 188,000,000 new stems on 480,000 to 830,000 acres (190,000 to 340,000 ha) by 2038. While objectives are presented as milkweed stems and monarch habitat acres, it is assumed establishment of new habitat includes co-establishment of native warm season grasses and forbs, which provide monarch adults with nectar sources from spring through the fall migration, in addition to milkweeds for oviposition and larval development.

42 http://www.mafwa.org/

132 Table A1: Estimated range of acres and milkweed stem targets for monarch habitat establishment in Iowa from 2015 to 2038 by land-use category.

Acres Range Stems* Range Urban/Suburban 39,774 198,870 Urban/Suburban 1,300,000 5,600,000 Public† 144,041 156,674 Public† 28,527,789 31,030,041 Other† 62,749 67,049 Other† 12,549,800 13,409,800 Road Rights-of-Ways 19,000 21,000 Road Rights-of-Ways 6,156,000 6,804,000 Agricultural 214,000 387,000 Agricultural 78,000,000 131,000,000 Total 479,564 830,593 Total 126,533,589 187,843,841 * New stems include stems derived from new seeding and subsequent propagation. Biologically reasonable stem densities of 10 to 50, 197 to 199, 200, 200 to 324, and 150 to 600 stems/acre were assumed for Urban/Suburban; Public Lands; Other; Road Rights-of-Ways and Agriculture, respectively. † These sectors include stems planted since 2015 through US Fish and Wildlife Service and other public programs.

Assumptions to reach these targets include the following: • Organizations, businesses, and landowners will have access to technical information (e.g., best management practices) and technical support service providers (e.g., support for habitat site selection and site preparation, planting and maintenance) • Sufficient public/private funding to defray costs for establishing and maintaining monarch habitat • Adequate seed availability • New and existing monarch habitat will be properly maintained Additional, unique inputs and assumptions were employed in formulating objectives for each of the specific land cover categories. These included, but were not limited to, estimates of land cover acres available for habitat establishment, landowner habitat-adoption rates and biologically reasonable milkweed stem densities. These assumptions are discussed in sector-specific summaries. The habitat target range bounds Iowa’s goal of 160,000,000 new stems. It is anticipated that additional habitat targets will be established for land-use classes not addressed to date; e.g., Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) highway rights-of-ways, commercial property, including utility power stations. Addition of these sectors will be included in future versions of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy. To the extent the combined, sector-specific targets exceed Iowa’s goal of 160,000,000 new stems, this “reserve capacity” will cover intermittent decreases in habitat establishment rates or unanticipated increases in monarch habitat loss over the next 20 years, as well as uncertainties in assumptions and inputs to the current analysis. For example, ongoing research and demonstration studies may indicate milkweed-seeding success or milkweed propagation rates were over estimated. To the extent habitat-establishment success or contributions of new habitat from other land-use categories are significantly greater than currently assumed, the consortium reserves the right to reduce the current estimated targets in a manner that maintains an appropriate “reserve capacity.” In the same manner, if current assumptions are found to over predict habitat establishment rates to the extent that it is unlikely Iowa can reach a goal of 160,000,000 new stems over the next 20 years, the consortium will consider revising sector targets and/or increase landowner recruitment efforts.

133

Summary of Sector-Specific Habitat Targets Urban/Suburban To estimate additional habitat within cities, including habitat planted by parks and recreation departments, corporations and rights of ways, data from the Mayor’s Monarch Pledge (MMP) (https://www.nwf.org/Garden-for-Wildlife/About/National-Initiatives/Mayors-Monarch-Pledge) was used. On average MMP cities added 8 acres of habitat in 2016. Thus 8 acres per year was assumed to be the high average, half (4 acres per year) was used as a medium estimate, and a quarter (2 acres per year) was used for low. To get an estimate of how residential areas may contribute habitat, data was used from the Plant Grow Fly (PGF) program, an outreach project that encourages citizens to plant and register pollinator habitat. These data provided an estimate of potential participation rates and average “patch” size in urban yards. These values were assumed to only represent a fraction of the participation because only a small fraction of people who put in habitat likely register it with the program. For the low goal it was assumed that 25% register, for medium it was assumed 10% register and for the high it was assumed 1% register. High = 2.5 acres, medium = 0.25 acres, and low = 0.1 acres. This was added to the estimate from the MMP data to establish the average acreage per city per year estimates (Table A2). Assumptions • Low, medium, and high stem densities reflect a range of effort across cities in Iowa. • Preliminary data from Plant.Grow.Fly. (https://www.blankparkzoo.com/conservation/plantgrowfly/), the Mayor’s Monarch Pledge (https://www.nwf.org/Garden-for-Wildlife/About/National-Initiatives/Mayors-Monarch- Pledge), and a survey of 19 Parks and Recreation Departments43 suggest habitat acres that can be established within 947 Iowa cities could range from:

o 2.1 acres per city per year (low–3% of urban areas) o 4.25 acres (medium–6% of urban areas) o 10.5 acres (high–14% of urban areas) A land cover analysis is in progress and will summarize the current acreage of land in several different urban land use subcategories (e.g., golf courses, cemetery, churches, schools). Preliminary results are consistent with the above estimates. In subsequent versions of the strategy, estimates of current acres and adoption rates will be refined as needed.

43 Survey of City Parks and Recreation Departments: There were 19 city parks and recreation responses to the survey, which was sent to over 100+ cities through the Iowa Parks and Recreation Association. In the last two years (2015 to 2016), the Parks and Recreation Departments have added roughly 90 acres, and estimate that together, the 15 departments that responded to this question could add a total of 32 acres per year for the next 10 years (320 total acres). This results in an average of 2.29 acres per year per city.

134 • Biologically reasonable stem densities in urban/suburban settings (Thogmartin et al. 2017a) could be 10, 25, or 50 stems per acre; a mean of 28.3 stems per acre was used.

Table A2: Average City Habitat Area Annual Estimate.

Backyard Area* Other Areas within Total Area (acres per city per year) Cities† (acres per city per year) (acres per city per year)

Low 0.1 2 2.1

Medium 0.25 4 4.25

High 2.5 8 10.5

* Plant.Grow.Fly data were used, but were assumed to represent only a fraction of gardens planted. Low, medium, and high estimates represent this uncertainty.

† Mayor’s Monarch Pledge data were used to estimate how much area may be possible to add each year.

Calculations There are 947 cities in Iowa. The number of cities was multiplied by the number of acres to be added per year to estimate habitat added annually. This figure was multiplied by 20 to determine how much habitat could be added over 20 years. To determine how many new stems could be established, the 20 year-acre estimates were multiplied by 28.3 stems/acre, resulting in a stem estimate range of 1,130,000 to 5,600,000 new stems to be added in the urban/suburban sector.

Table A3: Urban Area to Stem Conversion.

Total area Total area in 20 years Total new stems (acres per year) (acres) (acres per city per year)*

Low 1,989 39,774 1,130,000

Medium 4,025 80,495 2,278,008

High 9,943.5 198,870 5,628,021

* Biologically reasonable stem density used in conversion is 28.3 stems per acre

Conclusions The urban/suburban sector target is to add between 39,774 to 198,870 acres of habitat (represents 3% to 14% of total urban acres) and 1.13 to 5.6 million new stems (at an average of 28.33 milkweeds per acre). State, County and Federal Lands (Public) A survey was sent to Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and County Conservation Boards to determine how much monarch habitat has been restored or reconstructed in 2015, 2016, and 2017. This data was used to estimate how much habitat can be added annually for 20 years,

135 and the 20-year estimate was added to the totals from 2015, 2016, and 2017 to provide a 23-year target. A similar approach was used for the USFWS data. The biologically reasonable stems per acre estimate used was a stem gain of 199 per acre for reconstructed habitat and 197 stems per acre for restored habitat (Thogmartin et al. 2017a). Assumptions • DNR can continue to provide seed for 1,900 acres per year • Existing acres that are disturbed each year through fire, disking, etc., increase milkweed stem density, if milkweed is already there, at the same density as planting new prairie • Public land acquisition continues at the current rate • Special funding sources allowed to be used for nongame wildlife continue Calculations Estimates were partially based on a survey sent to Iowa DNR and County Conservation Boards, which is summarized below. Doug Helmers with the USFWS queried other USFWS personnel to quantify monarch habitat planted since 2015, and this inquiry was used to predict future habitat reconstruction and restoration for the next 20 years. The acreage was converted to stems using biologically reasonable stems per acre estimates of 199 per acre for reconstructed habitat and 197 per acre for restored habitat (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

136 Table A4: Iowa DNR and County Conservation Board Survey Data Summary.

Iowa DNR Iowa DNR County Total Area Total New Wildlife Parks Conservation (acres) Stems Boards

2015 Reconstructed* 2,318 103 1,164 3,585 713,415

2016 Reconstructed* 2,919 25 976 3,920 780,080

2017 Reconstructed* 2,143 88 1,170 3,401 676,799

Over Next 20 Years 23,860 694 38,700 63,254 12,587,546

2015 Restored† 1,574 124 868 2,566 505,502

2016 Restored† 1,731 192 935 2,858 563,026

2017 Restored† 2,244 469 1,047 3,760 740,720

Over next 20 Years 24,314 696 14,400 39,410 7,763,770

Total 61,103 2,391 59,260 122,754 24,330,858

*Reconstructed refers to newly planted milkweed habitat, representing a stem gain of 199 per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

† Restored refers to grassland that has been burned, disked, de-treed (disturbed), representing a stem gain of 197 per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

Table A5: USFWS Survey Data Summary.

USFWS Managed Lands Acres New Stems

Since 2015 Reconstructed* 335 66,665

Over Next 20 Years 4,700 935,300

Since 2015 Restored† 3,605 710,185

Over Next 20 Years 18,964 3,735,908

Total 27,604 5,448,058

* Reconstructed refers to newly planted milkweed habitat, representing a stem gain of 199 per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

† Restored refers to grassland that has been burned, disked, de-treed (disturbed), representing a stem gain of 197 per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

137 Table A6: Monarch Habitat Reconstructed or Restored on Public Lands During the Last Three Years.

Area (acres) New Stems

2015 to 2017 Reconstructed 11,241 2,236,959

2015 to 2017 Restored 12,789 2,519,433

Total 24,030 4,756,392

Given the assumptions and uncertainties associated with this estimate, the acres are likely to fall within a range of plus or minus 5% of 67,954 reconstructed acres and 58,374 restored acres over the next 20 years (Table A7).

Table A7: Potential Reconstructed or Restored Monarch Habitat on Public Lands over the Next 20 Years.

Area Range (acres) New Stems Range

Reconstructed* next 64,556 71,352 12,846,703 14,198,988 20 years

Restored† next 20 55,455 61,292 10,924,674 12,074,661 years

Total 120,011 132,644 23,771,397 26,273,649

* Using a stem gain of 199 per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

† Using a stem gain of 197 per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

Conclusions Between 2015 and 2017, 11,241 acres of monarch habitat have been reconstructed, and 12,789 acres have been restored on public land. Using a stem gain of 199 per acre for reconstructed habitat and 197 per acre for restored habitat (Thogmartin et al. 2017a), this new habitat results in 4,756,392 new stems (Table A6). In addition, there is potential for 120,011 to 132,644 new acres and 23,771,397 to 26,273,649 new stems on reconstructed and restored habitat during the next 20 years. Therefore, the target for the public sector is to increase monarch habitat by 144,041 to 156,674 acres and to add 28,527,789 to 31,030,041 new milkweed stems by 2038.

138 Other USFWS and NRCS Programs This category includes habitat planted by the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) Wetland Reserve Easement (WRE) (formerly the Wetlands Reserve Program), which both include acres that could be included in more than one of the other sectors. For example, the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program could plant habitat that falls within urban areas or agricultural areas. Thus care must be taken to avoid duplication, but by keeping the numbers separate, errors will be easy to locate and correct if they occur. Data from both private lands programs was collected from USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program staff by Doug Helmers, and John Paulin, NRCS wetland restoration specialist, provided the data for the ACEP- WRE. Both the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the NRCS program future projections use data from 2015, 2016 and 2017 to estimate how much habitat could be added annually for 20 years, and the 20-year estimate was added to the totals from previous years to provide a 23 year target. These estimates would be separate from the marginal land category in Agriculture, which is further explained in the Agriculture subsection. Assumptions • Federal funding for Iowa within both programs (USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and USDA NRCS WRE Program) continue at or above current levels. • USDA and USFWS staffing levels for these programs continue at or above the current level. Calculations Table A8: Private Lands Program Completed Habitat Stem Conversion.

Reconstructed* Area (acres) New Stems‡ FY 15 reconstructed 373 FY 16 reconstructed 290 FY 17 reconstructed 281 Total reconstructed 944 188,800

Restored† FY 15 restored 1,034 FY 16 restored 1,345 FY 17 restored 527 Total restored 2,906 581,200

* Reconstructed refers to newly planted milkweed habitat

† Restored refers to grassland that has been burned, disked, de-treed (disturbed)

‡ A biologically reasonable estimate for milkweed stems is 200 new stems per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

Future habitat construction was estimated based on conversations with private lands staff and is expected to be about 1,400 acres per year. Given the uncertainty associated with this estimate, a range of plus or minus 5% was applied so 1,330 to 1,470 acres will be planted per year.

139

Table A9: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Potential Habitat and Stems over the Next 20 Years.

Area Range (acres) after 20 years Stem Range after 20 years†

20 Years of 26,600 29,400 5,320,000 5,880,000 Reconstruction and Restoration*

* Future estimates are based on reconstructing or restoring 1,400 acres of habitat per year

† A biologically reasonable estimate for milkweed stems is 200 new stems per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

Table A10: NRCS WRE Completed Habitat Stem Conversion.

Area New NRCS WRE (acres) Stems* FY 15 350 FY 16 765 FY 17 297 FY 18† 1,627 Total 3,039 607,800

Future 15,000 3,000,000 Totals 18,039 3,607,800 *A biologically reasonable estimate for milkweed stems is 200 stems per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

†Projected based on 2018 funding

Based on the current farm bill, future WRE habitat construction was estimated to be about 750 acres per year for the next 20 years. Given the uncertainty associated with this estimate, a range of plus or minus 5% was applied. It is expected that 713 to 788 acres will be planted per year.

140 Table A11: Private Lands Program Potential WRE Habitat and Stems over the Next 20 Years.

Area Range (acres) after 20 years Stem Range after 20 years†

20 Years of new 14,260 15,760 2,852,000 3,152,000 WRE*

* WRE funding will be based on farm bill for beyond FY 18. A reasonable estimate is 750 acres per year for the next 20 years.

† A biologically reasonable estimate for milkweed stems is 200 new stems per acre (Thogmartin et al. 2017a).

Conclusions Together the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the NRCS WRE target for increasing monarch habitat is 62,749 to 67,049 acres and 12,549,800 to 13,409,800 new milkweed stems from 2015 through 2038. Roadsides Each year since 1998, the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management (IRVM) program has acquired native grass and wildflower seed through a Transportation Alternatives Program grant and distributed, on average, 1,000 acres worth of native grass, sedge, and forb seed for county roadside plantings. Currently, 45 Iowa counties participate in the IRVM program. Estimates of highway habitat potential will be included in the next version of the strategy. Assumptions • The IRVM program will continue to obtain Transportation Alternatives Program grants, allowing it to continue providing counties seed sufficient to plant 950 to 1,050 acres per year.

Secondary Roads (County Administered); IRVM Program Each year since 1998, the UNI IRVM program has coordinated a purchase of native grass and wildflower seed through a Transportation Alternatives Program grant administered by Iowa DOT and distributed an average of 1,000 acres worth of native grass, sedge, and forb seed to about half of Iowa counties for roadside plantings. To represent the variation that occurs from year to year, future estimates were made based on a range of 950 to 1,050 acres planted per year (1,000 acres plus and minus 5%). Assuming continuation of this rate of planting, 19,000 to 21,000 acres would be seeded in 20 years. There is little research on milkweed establishment in county roadsides, but a biologically reasonable stem density for county roadsides is 324 mature milkweeds per acre, based on a 1-year study conducted in central Iowa that used four times the milkweed seeding rate of a typical IRVM mix and different site preparation than a typical mix (personal communication Justin Meissen, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center). However, given that many common milkweed species recruit to county roadsides on their own without seeding, this general estimate is being used. This results in an estimate of 6,156,000 to 6,804,000 new stems.

141 Table A12: Secondary County Roadside Area and Stem Estimates.

Area planted per year Area during 20 Years New Stems* (acres)

Low 950 19,000 6,156,000

High 1,050 21,000 6,804,000

* A biologically reasonable estimate for milkweed stems in roadsides is 324 stems per acre (personal communication Justin Meissen, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center).

Conclusions Roadsides along county roads monarch habitat target is 19,000 to 21,000 acres, and this would result in 6,156,000 to 6,804,000 new stems in the next 20 years.

142 Agriculture Habitat targets for land cover/land use were estimated for existing conservation reserve program (CRP) land, marginally productive corn and soybean fields, pasture, a variety of livestock production facilities, and rural homesteads. To estimate habitat targets for each of these land cover/land-use categories, a number of input assumptions were required, including estimates of the total number of acres available for each category; landowner adoption rates; composition of seed mix; planting success rate for establishing new stems; and the extent to which newly established stems would propagate over time. These input assumptions are summarized below. Assumptions Acres Available for Potential Habitat Establishment Existing CRP: 1,143,000 acres. Existing CRP land available for augmentation to monarch habitat is based on the Cropland Data Layer 2014 and related analyses reported by Thogmartin et al. (2017a). While some acres come out of CRP and additional acres enter CRP each year, it is assumed that the overall number of acres remain constant. Marginal Corn and Soybean Cropland: 448,000 acres. Estimated using the 2012 National Commodity Cropland Productivity Index (score <40 defined as marginal corn and soybean cropland), as reported by Thogmartin et al. (2017a). Pasture: 1,900,000 acres. Estimated based on USDA NASS (2012). Dairy Feedlots: 1,810 acres. Based on USDA NASS (2012), there are 1,810 feedlots; assume 1 acre per feed lot potentially available for habitat establishment. Beef Feedlots: 1,509 to 6,036 acres. Based on USDA NASS (2012), there are 6,036 feedlots; assume 25% (1,509 feedlots) are associated with a confinement building (Schulz 2014); assume 1 acre per feedlot potentially available for habitat establishment. Poultry Farms: 4,333 acres. Based on USDA NASS (2012), there are 4,333 farms; assume 1 acre per farm potentially available for habitat establishment. Pork Confinement Facilities: 13,000 to 19,500 acres. Iowa Pork Producers Association estimates 6,500 facilities and two to three habitat sites established per facility; assume 1 acre per site. Rural Farmsteads: 200 acres. Based on NASS (2012), there are 88,000 rural farmsteads in Iowa; assume monarch gardens are 0.0023 acres (Monarch Watch 2017). Landowner Adoption Rates Existing CRP: 15% to 30% of existing CRP augmented at mid-contract or contract renewal Marginal Corn and Soybean Cropland: 5% Pasture: 1% Pork Facilities, Poultry Farms and Beef Feedlots: 1.5% Rural Farmsteads: 10%

Regardless of land cover/land-use type, plantings are assumed to range between 0.5 and 5.0 acres, with a limited number of sites greater than 10 acres.

143

Monarch Habitat Seed Mix and Planting Success: 12,000 milkweed seeds per acre

The Iowa State University monarch seed mix (https://store.extension.iastate.edu/Product/Monarch- Seed-Mix-High-Diversity) includes an equivalent of 16,000 milkweed seeds per acre (12,000 common milkweed seeds and the remaining balance swamp and butterfly milkweed seeds). Pheasants Forever (J. Divan, personal communication) reports using a range of approximately 700 to over 52,000 milkweed seeds per acre with an average of 9,000 seeds per acre for 12 recent pollinator seed mixes. Excluding two monarch seed mixes with an average of 39,000 seeds per acre, the average Pheasants Forever pollinator CRP rate is 3,000 milkweed seeds per acre. Based on this data from Iowa State and Pheasants Forever, 12,000 seeds per acre was used as the milkweed seeding rate for new habitat calculations. A range of 1.0 to 2.0% of planted seeds is assumed to produce new milkweed stems. For scenarios where seed is planted in bluegrass or pasture, it is assumed that 2.0% planted seeds will produce new stems. Note: For rural farmsteads, 10 milkweed plugs were assumed to be planted per 0.023 acre plots (Monarch Watch 2017) with a 100% planting success rate.

Milkweed Stem Propagation It is assumed that newly established stems will propagate at a rate of 5, 7.5 or 10% per year, assuming a habitat site is disturbed with mowing or burning once every five years. Common milkweed propagates via adventitious root buds (Bhowmik, 1994; Bhowmik and Bandeen, 1976; Evetts et al., 1974; Evetts and Burnside, 1972). There is limited data available, however, to estimate propagation rates for common milkweed stems. Bhowmik and Bandeen (1976) provide data indicating a maximum value of 140% propagation from a single seedling over four years. Meissen at al. (2017) reported for common rhizomatous prairie species, propagation rates of 30% for Canada goldenrod to 2% for Anemone spp. Assuming monarch habitat patches are disturbed every five years by burning or mowing, it is unlikely propagation rates would exceed 30%, but is likely higher than 2%. Propagation rates of 5, 7.5 or 10% over five years result in predicted stems per acre in CRP between approximately 150 to 300, 225 to 450, or 300 to 600 stems per acre, respectively, assuming a 1 or 2% seed to new stem conversion rate and a seeding density of 12,000 milkweed seeds per acre. Thogmartin et al. (2017a) assumed a biologically reasonable upper bound stem density for CRP to be between 200 and 225 stems per acre, based on best professional judgement. In the calculations described below, it is assumed that all seeding in the agricultural sector occurs in the first 10 years, and stem propagation occurs in the remaining 10 years of the 20-year strategy. An estimate of stem propagation could be based on yearly estimates of acres inter-seeded or planted over each of the next 20 years. However, given the uncertainties in forecasting the yearly amount of new habitat acres established over the next 20 years, an estimate of propagation was

144 used for only the last 10 years of the strategy. Assuming no propagation until year 11 underestimates total stem propagation for those acres planted early in the first decade but overestimates stem propagation for those acres planted late in the first 10 years. Funding and Support It is assumed that federal funding to support establishment and maintenance of monarch habitat, especially funds appropriated to farm bill programs, are maintained at or above fiscal year 2017 levels. Calculations To estimate the number of new milkweed stems produced during the 20 years of the strategy, the following calculations were used: Marginal Cropland, Livestock Facilities, Feedlots and Pasture: Number of New Stems = current acres X adoption rate X 12,000 milkweed seeds per acre X 0.01 or 0.02 new stems per seed X a compounded propagation rate of 5, 7.5 or 10% per year over 10 years. Rural Farmsteads: Number of New Stems = current number of farmsteads X adoption rate X 10 milkweed plugs X site 1.0 new stems per plug Augmenting (inter-seeding) Existing CRP: Given the high proportion of existing land cover/land-use currently in CRP, the workgroup assigned a goal of 40,000,000 new stems from inter-seeding existing CRP during the first 10 years of the strategy. Currently 512,000 acres are enrolled in CP-25 (Rare and Declining Habitat), CP-38 (States Acres for Wildlife) and CP42 (Pollinator Habitat). Arguably, these existing CRP practices may be most readily augmented by inter-seeding with a monarch habitat seed mix. Assuming a seeding rate of 12,000 milkweed seeds per acre and 0.01 or 0.02 stems per seed, this equates to approximately 171,000 or 343,000 acres of existing CRP augmented through inter-seeding at mid- contract or contract renewal. The compounded propagation rate of 5, 7.5 or 10% per year over 10 years was applied to 40,000,000 stems. Results Based on the input assumptions and calculations summarized above, the range of acres associated with habitat establishment and the range of new milkweed stems from planting over the first 10 years of the strategy in the agriculture sector are provided in Table A13. The estimated total number of acres planted ranges from approximately 214,000 to 387,000 acres. Applying a 1 or 2% seed to stem conversion rate to 214,000 to 387,000 acres results in approximately 48,000,000 to 50,500,000 new stems.

145 Table A13: Agriculture Habitat Acres and Stem Estimates for Years 1 to 10.

Area Low Area High New Stems New Stems Ag Sector Land Cover (acres) (acres) (low) (high) Existing CRP 171,000 343,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 Marginal Lands 22,400 22,400 2,688,000 5,376,000 Pasture 19,000 19,000 4,560,000 4,560,000 Dairy Feedlots 1,810 1,810 434,400 434,400 Beef Feedlots 22 90 5,280 21,600 Poultry Farms 65 65 15,600 15,600 Pork Confinements 250 250 60,000 60,000 Rural Farmsteads 200 200 88,000 88,000 Total 214,747 386,815 47,851,280 50,555,600

The range of stems produced after 20 years (see Table A14) takes into account propagation of stems established in the first 10 years (Table A13).

146 Table A14: Estimated Number of New Stems in Agricultural Land Cover After 20 Years

Rate of Annual Propagation Total New Stems Including Propagation Low* 5% 78,000,000 7.5% 99,000,000 10% 124,000,000 High† 5% 82,000,000 7.5% 104,000,000 10% 131,000,000 * Low estimate based on starting stem estimate of 47,851,280 stems. † High estimate based on starting stem estimate of 50,555,600 stems.

Conclusions The estimated total number of acres planted results in a target of approximately 214,000 to 387,000 acres. Assuming a 5% to 10% yearly stem propagation rate compounded over 10 years results in a range of new stems over 20 years from 78,000,000 to 131,000,000. Based on an analysis of native seed production in Iowa (https://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/MJV_Report_Milkweed_Market.pdf), if these levels of productions are maintained there should be sufficient native seed available to achieve cumulative targets over 3, 5, 7 and 10 years of approximately 114,000; 190,000; 270,000; and 386,000 planted acres, respectively.

147

9.7 Appendix G: Consortium Committee and Workgroup Structure

148 9.8 Appendix H: Best Management Practice Resource List Ag Resources Technical Assistance USDA NRCS Monarch Resources USDA NRCS Native Prairie Planting Guides: Establishing and Managing Native Prairie USDA FSA USFWS Partners for Fish & Wildlife DNR Private Lands Program Prairie Partners Program IDALS Iowa Pheasants Forever Wildlife Habitat Program map of county contacts USDA Biology Technical Note No. 78, 2nd Ed: Using Farm Bill Programs Soil Conservation Districts County Conservation Boards

Site Selection NRCS Plant Community Query Tool: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ia/technical/ecoscience/bio/NRCS142P2_008160/

Site Preparation Pheasants Forever has a resource for site preparation here. USDA NRCS Native Prairie Planting Guides: Planting Native Prairie into Cool Season Sod USDA NRCS Native Prairie Planting Guides: Planting Native Prairie into Corn or Soybean Stubble Tallgrass Prairie Center reconstruction videos

Seed Mix Development NRCS Plant Community Query Tool

149 Iowa State Monarch Seed Mix Pheasants Forever Seed Mixes NRCS Seed Calculator: Step 1: Go to https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov Step 2: Select your state. Step 3: Select your county. Step 4: In the navigation along the left, select “Section IV” from the dropdown menu. Step 5: Click Tools Step 6: Click Native Sedding Calculator, which represents Native Seeding Calculator Tallgrass Prairie Center Seed Mix Generator Plant Iowa Native Prairie Plants Recommended by Xerces

Planting USDA NRCS Native Prairie Planting Guides: Planting Native Prairie into Corn or Soybean Stubble Milkweed Stratification recommendations by Xerces (page 20) Prairie Moon Nursery Guide Prairie Moon Nursery Resource List Tallgrass Prairie Center Propagation and Seeding Instructions Conservation Cover Job Sheet

Post-Planting Management Mowing Best Practices for Monarchs by Monarch Joint Venture NRCS Best Practices for Monarch butterfly: Achieving Best Results for the Monarch in the Midwest Pest Management EPA Best Management Practices to Protect Pollinators Burning Iowa DNR: Prescribed Burning for Landowners

150 Urban/Suburban Resources General Monarch Butterfly Info Monarch Information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Iowa DNR Monarch and Pollinators Page Creating and Managing Habitat Mader, E, M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, S. H. Black and G. LeBuhn. (2011). Attracting Native Pollinators: Protecting North America’s Bees and Butterflies. North Adams, MA: Storey Publishing. Gardening for Monarchs from the Monarch Joint Venture Creating Habitat for Monarchs from the Monarch Joint Venture Mowing for Monarchs from the Monarch Joint Venture Butterfly Gardening by the Xerces Society Butterfly Gardening by Monarch Watch Monarch Breeding Habitat Assessment Tool Recommended Monarch Seed Mix from Iowa State University Good Neighbor – Pollinator- friendly Lawn Management Rainscaping: www.rainscapingiowa.org Clean Water Iowa: https://www.cleanwateriowa.org/home Soil and Water Conservation Districts Prairie Reconstruction The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook edited by Stephen Packard and Connie Mutel. [BOOK] A Practical Guide to Prairie Reconstruction by Carl Kurtz. [BOOK] Going Native: A Prairie Restoration Handbook for Minnesota Land owners by MNDNR. [BOOKLET – free download] https://www.extension.iastate.edu/news/yard-and-garden-all-about-milkweed Contact local Wildlife Management Unit Biologists Buying and Growing Native Plants List of Iowa Native Plant Vendors: http://www.plantiowanative.com/resources/#services Milkweed Propagation and Management: http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Milkweeds_XerSoc_june2014.pdf Pollinator Plants of the Central United States: Native Milkweeds (Asclepias spp.). Prepared by the Xerces Society and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. Especially good information for incorporating milkweeds into NRCS Conservation practices. Milkweed Identification and Information: Monarch Watch’s Milkweed Profiles Milkweed Seed Finder (Xerces Society) Monarch Watch’s Milkweed Market Milkweed Propagation from Monarch Watch Pheasants Forever Monarch Habitat Tips Series https://www.wildones.org - Resources for people interested in natural landscaping, including creating monarch habitat and navigating local ordinances Garden Registration, Citizen Science, Outreach Plant.Grow.Fly Website List of other Habitat Certification Programs

151 Monarch Joint Venture Fact Sheets and Handouts Iowa Butterfly Survey Network (Reiman Gardens) National Monarch Monitoring Program by Monarch Joint Venture Mayor’s Monarch Pledge by National Wildlife Federation Resources for Help People For Pollinators (Des Moines Area) – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Soil and Water Conservation Districts REAP Grants: http://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/REAP/REAP-Grants Iowa Urban Conservation Program: https://www.iowaagriculture.gov/FieldServices/urbanConservation.asp Plant Options What Not to Plant, Iowa Noxious Weeds List: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/ACO/IC/LINC/Section.317.1a.pdf What Not to Plant, DNR Resource for Invasive Weeds: http://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/Forestry/Forest-Health/Invasive-Plants Where to purchase your plants: List of Vendors Provided by Plant.Grow.Fly: https://www.blankparkzoo.com/conservation/plantgrowfly/create-your-garden/sources-for-seeds- and-plants/ Plants that also Benefit Water Quality Soil and Water Conservation District: http://cdiowa.org/ Rainscaping Iowa: www.rainscapingiowa.org Clean Water Iowa: https://www.cleanwateriowa.org/home Funding Resources For Water Quality Projects, REAP Grants: http://www.iowadnr.gov/Conservation/REAP/REAP- Grants Contact the Iowa Urban Conservation Program team to learn more about available funding: https://www.iowaagriculture.gov/FieldServices/urbanConservation.asp Post-Planting Management Mowing recommendations from Monarch Joint Venture: https://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/MowingForMonarchs.pdf Pest Management Good Neighbor Program: https://goodneighboriowa.org/

152 Educate Others Register habitat for signage and to help track state-wide habitat restoration progress with Blank Park Zoo’s Plant.Grow.Fly. program: https://www.blankparkzoo.com/conservation/plantgrowfly/ Encourage your local mayor to sign the National Wildlife Federation’s Mayor’s Monarch Pledge: https://www.nwf.org/Garden-For-Wildlife/About/National-Initiatives/Mayors-Monarch- Pledge.aspx Help Monitor Results as a Citizen Scientist Reiman Gardens: Iowa Butterfly Survey Network: https://www.reimangardens.com/collections/insects/iowa-butterfly-survey-network/ Monarch Joint Venture Options: https://monarchjointventure.org/get-involved/study-monarchs-citizen-science-opportunities/ Monarch Rearing Monarch Joint Venture “Rearing Monarchs: Why or Why Not?

Rights of Ways—County Roadsides Resources Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Technical Manual: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=facbook Landowners and Roadsides FAQ Brochure: https://tallgrassprairiecenter.org/sites/default/files/2409.1- 21.1_tallgrassprairiebrochure_landownersroadsides_smaller.pdf Iowa’s Mowing Law for Roadsides: https://tallgrassprairiecenter.org/sites/default/files/2409.1- 21.1_tallgrassprairiebrochure_mowinglaw_smaller.pdf Iowa Living Roadway Trust Fund Native Plant Database: https://secure.iowadot.gov/lrtf/NativePlantPublic.aspx

Plant Iowa Native Resources database: http://www.plantiowanative.com/resources/#services Xerces: Milkweed, a Conservation Practitioner's Guide: http://www.xerces.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/Milkweeds_XerSoc_june2014.pdf

Monarch Joint Venture Invasive Species Alert: http://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/Swallow-wort_flyer.pdf

153 Public Lands Resources

Prairie Reconstruction The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook edited by Stephen Packard and Connie Mutel. [BOOK] A Practical Guide to Prairie Reconstruction by Carl Kurtz. [BOOK] Going Native: A Prairie Restoration Handbook for Minnesota Landowners by MNDNR. Wildlife Habitat Program map of county contacts Milkweed and Native Seed Sources Plant Iowa Native Resources. Learn how you can use native plants for horticultural, conservation, and habitat- improvement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Prairie Partners Program Iowa DNR Private Lands Program Milkweed Propagation and Management: Milkweeds: A Conservation Practitioner’s Guide Pollinator Plants of the Central United States: Native Milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) Prepared by the Xerces Society and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. Especially good information for incorporating milkweeds into NRCS Conservation practices. Milkweed Identification and Information: Monarch Watch’s Milkweed Profiles

General Monarch Information Monarchnet: A library of all papers published about Monarch butterflies Monarch Information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Monarch Breeding Habitat Assessment Tool Monarch Joint Venture Fact Sheets and Handouts: Useful information for your use and for sharing with interested citizens. The site includes handouts on responsible Monarch rearing, establishing schoolyard gardens, Monarch citizen science, and milkweeds. There are also a number of documents on land management. http://monarchjointventure.org/resources/publications/ Gardening for Monarchs from the Monarch Joint Venture, Butterfly Gardening by the Xerces Society, Butterfly Gardening by MonarchWatch.

154 The Iowa DNR is an official partner of Blank Park Zoo’s (Des Moines) Plant.Grow.Fly. program, which encourages people to plant pollinator friendly gardens and register them. Their site corrals a lot of good information, and DNR has informational brochures that are available for display. Feel free to refer interested citizens to this program. Plant.Grow.Fly Website.

155

9.9 Appendix I: Additional County Conservation Board Updates Chickasaw County Chickasaw County has been doing monarch education programs for a few years now, which includes seven school programs each year with about 150 students total. A butterfly garden was established at the Twin Ponds Nature Center, and the Chickasaw County Board helped the New Hampton High School put in a 1 ac (0.4 ha) plot about five years ago. In the future, Chickasaw County plans to plant about 60 ac (24 ha) with a pollinator mix, depending on access to the seed, with about 10 ac (4 ha) to be planted in spring of 2017. Boone County The Boone County Conservation Board has • Planted approximately 23 ac (9.3 ha) of pollinator habitat plus 700 plugs • Conducted public pollinator program in the City of Boone • Conducted monarch and pollinator programs in the Boone County School System • Planted a butterfly garden around one of the board’s enclosed shelters, which included some of the 700 plugs as well as direct seeding Clayton County Every year, the Clayton County Conservation holds a Monarch Release Party on the first Friday in September, with an educational program, monarch tagging and release. In 2016, there were 31 participants, all of whom received an Asclepias mixture depending on what they had available for planting. On top of that, the Osborne office serves as an official monarch waystation and also as a rearing facility--16 monarchs were successfully raised to adulthood, tagged (per Monarch Watch out of University of Kansas), and released. Davis County The Davis County Conservation Board is applying 6.5 ac (2.6 ha) of filter strips in a pollinator mixes along field borders and around some of the ponds on the area last spring and this fall. The board also has a group of master gardeners who participated in the Plant Grow Fly program with Blank Park Zoo in the education garden located in a local park. Decatur County In 2015, working with the Fish & Wildlife Service Decatur County Conservation Board planted approximately 10 ac (4 ha) of Monarch Butterfly habitat at Slip Bluff Park. In 2016, working with the Southern Iowa Oak Savanna Alliance (SIOSA) and Graceland University a “Bringing Back the Monarchs” workshop was held with 20 participants. This workshop covered Monarch lifecycles, habitat needs and monitoring. Graceland students, DCCB Staff and SIOSA will be regularly

156 monitoring the pollinator plot at Slip Bluff to study Monarch use of the area through a REAP CEP Grant received by SIOSA. Floyd County The Floyd County Conservation Board has planted about 20 ac (8 ha) of pollinator mix. A pollinator grant from Trees Forever was awarded to the board, which will help fund a public pollinator day in spring of 2017 where participants will plant trees and 200 milkweed plugs. Rockford, Rudd, Charles City, all have butterfly gardens in Floyd County. In addition, the board works with youth to practice monarch tagging and teach about the life cycle of the butterfly. Hamilton County The Hamilton County Conservation Board planted 15 ac (6.0 ha) of pollinator habitat (CP42 mix) at Bishop’s Cons in 2015. The CP42 pollinator mix was also planted on 1 ac (0.4 ha) in the Coyote Bend food plot in 2016. The Hamilton County Conservation Board plans to plant an additional 12 ac (4.6 ha) of pollinator habitat Coyote Bend in 2017 with the Statewide Wet / Mesic Pollinator Mix. Jackson County The Jackson County Conservation Board held 19 programs with 344 participants in 2016 related to monarchs and pollinator habitat, and 178 monarch butterflies were tagged with students and the public for education/awareness. The nature center has a pollinator garden, and 42 monarchs were raised at there in September of 2016 for education/awareness. Plans are also underway for a 25 ac (10 ha) planting at a county park in 2017. Jasper County This year, the Jasper County Conservation Board hosted 17 monarch-specific programs, reaching 499 people. In addition, several field trip groups visited as monarchs were tagged and released with children this fall at Mariposa Recreation Area and Jacob Krumm Nature Preserve. Including the visiting children, more than 600 people participated in monarch programs. Two of the 17 programs were public events, with one at the Newton Library and one at the Newton Arboretum. Most of the school programs are for Kindergarteners or for classes that raise a butterfly and then naturalists join them to tag and release the monarch. Designated monarch gardens have been planted at Mariposa Recreation Area and the Newton Public Library. Efforts are underway to plan something at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School in Newton and possibly at Berg Middle School in Newton for the future. I believe the Prairie City Library also worked with Neal Smith Wildlife Refuge this summer on a planting as well. Recently, the Jasper County Conservation Board received a grant from INHF to convert 19 ac (7.7 ha) of cool season pasture into a monarch/pollinator site, which will be completed in spring of 2017.

157 Jefferson County Monarch conservation efforts are just getting started in Jefferson County, where the Jefferson County Conservation Board has entered into a partnership with the USFWS. So far, 3 ac (1.2 ha) have been planted with a pollinator mix, and three programs have been held with 180 participants. Jones County In 2015, the Jones County Conservation Board planted 10 ac (4 ha) of monarch habitat. In addition, swamp, common, and whorled milkweed seed were collected, cleaned, and distributed to schools, nursing homes, and individuals interested in planting monarch garden habitats. Four high school classes with 84 students and four assisted living and nursing homes with 64 residents assisted with collecting and cleaning milkweed seeds. The board participated in the annual monarch tagging program by providing presentations to members of the public, youth groups, and to students in schools; 17 programs were held and reached 303 contacts. Butterfly garden and pollinator habitat, including a variety of milkweed species, was added into the landscaping in front of the Central Park Nature Center. Additional outreach efforts have included multiple published articles in local papers and pollinator blurbs were shared on the county’s Facebook page. The Jones County Conservation Board continued monarch conservation efforts in 2016. The board participated in the Jones County Earth Day Fair with an exhibit on milkweed and monarchs. Milkweed seed was distributed, and the booth had 250 visitors. A monarch presentation was also held at the fair, reaching 32 visitors. The board received milkweed plus from a Monarch Watch Grant for a monarch habitat restoration project at Central Park. The plugs were planted over roughly 5 ac (2 ha) around the new west pond, near the south wetland, and in the Nature Center planting. The monarch tagging program was successful again by providing presentations to members of the public, youth groups, and to students in schools; 25 programs were held and reached 437 contacts. In addition, milkweed seeds were informally collected and spread in October and November on an additional 5 ac. Butterfly garden efforts (including advice and information on funding) were supported at the Anamosa Middle School, within the community of Anamosa and at Strawberry Hill Elementary. Again, multiple articles were published in local papers, and pollinator blurbs were shared on the county’s Facebook page. Wright County The Wright County Conservation Board presents information about monarch migration and life cycles to around 150 1st through 3rd graders speaking annually. During each presentation, several monarchs are tagged and released with Monarch Watch tags. The board also organizes a camp in the late summer where participants attempt to catch and tag monarchs. The camp usually involves 30 kids/parents. In 2016, two conservation board projects were approved for the monarch butterfly flyway grant through the NFWF which will allow 15 ac (6 ha) of pollinator mix to be planted on two separate areas. In Wright County, there is already one butterfly garden located at Lake Cornelia, and there are plans to expand it in years to come. Clarion-Goldfield-Dows School worked with us four years ago to plant a forb-rich butterfly garden in front of the middle school. The Belmond-Klemme School has a 14 ac (2 ha) outdoor classroom that has bountiful numbers of

158 native flowers growing on it. Future efforts are being prepared to develop a few other crucial sites over the next few years utilizing pollinator-rich plantings for monarchs. 9.10 Appendix J: Executive Committee By-Laws (Future version; cross section of all organizations) 9.11 Appendix K: Memorandum of Understanding: (Future version) Interagency cooperation and coordination; coordination with agriculture and conservation organizations and private landowners 9.12 Appendix L: Monarch Habitat Decision Support Tools (Future version) 9.13 Appendix M: Executive and Technical Committee Members (Future version) 9.14 Appendix N: Habitat Monitoring Protocol (Future version) 9.15 Appendix O: Monarch Monitoring Protocol (Future version) 9.16 Appendix P: Information, Education and Outreach (Future version)

159 9.17 Appendix Q: Monarch Meetings Summary January 2015 Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium Discussion led to the creation of the Consortium and the thought starter document that follows: Monarch Conservation and ESA Options: A Thought Starter Assumptions The Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium research and extension efforts will result in farmers, ranchers and other non-Federal landowners establishing and maintaining monarch breeding habitat that supports butterfly reproduction. The Iowa conservation effort will proceed whether or not the USFWS decides to list the species under the ESA. The implemented conservation measures will at a minimum be beneficial to the species and depending on the nature and extent of the measures may be sufficient to preclude the need for listing. If listing is needed, landowners who participate in a USFWS approved pre-listing conservation agreement will be exempt from all ESA regulations specified in the agreement. ESA Background If the USFWS ultimately lists the monarch, then non-Federal landowners whose actions can harm the butterfly or its habitat will need an incidental take permit from the USFWS to proceed with an activity that would otherwise result in an unlawful ‘take’ (i.e., harm) to the butterfly or its habitat. A conservation plan, approved by USFWS, is a prerequisite to receiving an incidental take permit. Non-Federal landowners can establish conservation plans either before or after a species is listed. Upon approval of a plan by the USFWS, the Service then issues an incidental take permit(s) to those non-Federal landowners that are participating in the conservation plan. The permit protects the landowners from the prohibition of harming a listed species or its habitat. To issue a permit USFWS confirms the conservation measures in the plan will meet the standards under section 10(a)(1) of the ESA, or in the case of candidate species, confirms the conservation measures are sufficient to preclude the need for listing assuming other landowners in the species’ range adopted the same measures. If the USFWS does not list a candidate species, then the development and approval of a pre-listing plan should have no regulatory impact under the ESA on future land management practices of non- Federal landowners (assumes USFWS is unlikely to revisit a ‘no listing’ decision in the foreseeable future or is not forced to reverse a ‘no listing’ decision by the courts). Conservation plans (and the resultant permits) can be established by (issued to) individual landowners. ‘Programmatic’ conservation plans (and resultant permit(s)) can be established for a group of participating landowners – typically a State agency, perhaps in association with USDA, facilitates the development of a programmatic plan, its review/approval by USFWS and its implementation. Conservation plans developed and implemented before a listing decision (i.e., a plan developed for a candidate species or a species at-risk) can provide participating private landowners varying

160 degrees of assured continuity of on-going land management activities. Conservation plans developed and implemented post-listing will likely require changes in land management practices for those landowners whose activities could result in harm to the species or its habitat. Under certain conditions, conservation plans developed before or after a listing decision can have regulatory certainty/assurances (‘no surprises’) for non-Federal landowners; i.e., under certain circumstances USFWS will not require additional land management requirements beyond those specified in an approved plan due to unforeseen circumstances in the future. Approved plans have regulatory assurance for the future (“no regulatory surprises”). Conservation plans are science-based (e.g., relationships between improved habitat and species population must be established, rigorous monitoring programs to assess performance outcomes of the conservation plan, etc), include adaptive management approaches, and governance among participants. Plans can include options for developing a market for habitat credits (‘cap and trade’) with participating or non-participating landowners. All types of post- or pre-listing conservation plans must be approved by USFWS. Post-Listing Conservation Options 1. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) – These plans are required as part of an application to the USFWS for an incidental take permit. Conservation measures are required to minimize and mitigate take to the maximum extent practicable. Upon approval of a plan, state and private landowners are assured that if unforeseen circumstances arise, the USFWS will not require participants to comply with additional land use restrictions for the duration of the permit, without prior consent. 2. Safe Harbor Agreements for Private Landowners – This program also results in the issuance of permit, but is more appropriate for a scenario where a landowner wishes to voluntarily implement habitat conservation that will support recovery of the species and may attract a listed species to their property. When approved by the USFWS, the landowners’ permit (an Enhancement of Survival Permit, a type of incidental take permit) protects them from unlawful take during the life of the permit and allows them to lawfully return the land to its original condition after the permit expires. 3. Conservation Banks – Permanently protected land that can be used as credit for adverse effects to a species for activities that may occur on other land. For the monarch, probably not a likely option, at least for privately-owned land. Pre-Listing Conservation Options Pre-listing programs are designed to address habitat conservation for a species prior to potential listing (i.e., candidate species being reviewed for potential listing or species determined to be warranted for listing, but currently precluded from listing). Pre-listing programs can be designed to preclude the need for listing. If USFWS subsequently determines listing required, future conservation management requirements for an incidental take

161 permit may be more limited, as compared to a situation where no pre-listing conservation activities were undertaken. 1. Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) - Similar in substance to a HCP. Typically focuses on Federal landowners. Because Federal landowners are part of the agreement, USFWS cannot provide assurances of no regulatory surprises in the future if the species is listed (USFWS can only provide assurances to non-Federal landowners). 2. Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurance (CCAA) - CCAAs only apply to non- Federal landowners. The USFWS will issue an Enhancement of Survival Permit (a type of incidental take permit) upon approval of a CCAA. The conservation measures are designed to preclude the need for listing in the area covered by the agreement, and there are assurances of no regulatory surprises if the species is listed in the future. 3. Pre-Listing Conservation Action (PCA) - A proposed regulation by USFWS. Although not a final regulation, a pilot effort may be supported by the Service. PCAs can include Federal and non-Federal landowners. As proposed, these actions must be administered through a State agency. The conservation measures must be beneficial to the candidate species but they are not as exacting as those specified in a CCA or CCAA. Conservation measures in PCAs do not carry regulatory assurances. If the candidate species is listed, conservation achieved through measures undertaken in a PCA may serve as a mitigation or compensatory measure in a future HCP and resultant incidental take permit. Given the nature of the monarch’s habitat, a programmatic pre- or post- listing conservation effort would be most effective and efficient, as compared to individual landowners developing their unique plans with USFWS. Typically a state DNR or wildlife agency serves as the facilitating state entity that works with landowners and USFWS to develop and implement a programmatic conservation plan. It is possible that USDA could serve as the facilitator of a programmatic conservation plan. The sage grouse pre-listing conservation plan involves USDA/NRCS holding a section 7 conference opinion, which can be converted into a final biological opinion if the sage grouse is listed. This conversion reduces the regulatory impacts of a listing by ensuring that plan participants receive incidental take coverage upon or soon after a listing. It is important to note that in the USFWS approval of this agreement, the Service recommended the non-Federal landowners subsequently create a CCAA to have assurance of no regulatory surprises if the grouse is listed in the future. Thus it may be possible to have USDA facilitate the initial ‘heavy lifting’ to establish a programmatic CCA and then using that ‘template’ create a related programmatic CCAA facilitated by the state.

162 Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium 4/1/2015 Agenda 1. Consortium Vision and Operating Principles 2. Consortium Members and Partners 3. Keystone Policy Center – Monarch Collaborative Project meeting scheduled for April 6 and 7 4. Webpage under construction - http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/ 5. Work group report - pre–listing conservation plan 6. Research update: a) Milkweed monitoring; b) Monarch monitoring – in conjunction with the Iowa DNR-ISU; c) Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring program; d) Demonstration plots for 2015 7. Other items

Outcomes and Action Items Consortium Vision and Operating Principles: Consortium members are to send any comments/suggestions to the draft Vision and Operating Principles by April 3. ISU will finalize and distribute the final document the week of April 6th. Discussion topics: It was clarified that financial or in-kind contributions to the Consortium can include resources member organizations may receive from their constituents or other interested parties. Interested parties may also contribute resources to the Consortium but defer membership. Consortium Members and Partners: The proposed definitions of consortium members and partners was approved. The definitions will be included in the final Consortium Vision and Operating Principles. Upon finalization of the Vision and Operating Principles document, the following organizations that have contacted the consortium will be invited to join as members: • University of Northern Iowa, Tallgrass Prairie Center • Bayer CropScience • Iowa Chapter of Pheasants Forever • USDA – Agricultural Research Office • USDA – Farm Service Agency • US Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office Upon finalization of the Vision and Operating Principles document, the following organizations that have contacted the consortium will be invited to join as partners: • Monarch Watch • Monarch Joint Venture

Keystone Policy Center – Monarch Collaborative Project meeting scheduled for April 6 and 7:

163 Eric Sachs summarized that the meeting will be an opportunity to convene diverse stakeholders to discuss and define the potential value, purpose, goals and structure of collaborative efforts to help implement solutions to challenges in accelerating efforts for monarch recovery. Participation in the meeting will come from sectors including growers, the agricultural supply chain, university researchers, NGOs, and government agencies. ISU has accepted an invitation to attend and discuss the Consortium and its goals, consistent with the information shared and discussed at our February 13 meeting. Webpage: ISU anticipates having a draft website ready for review in approximately two weeks, but any initial comments are appreciated (send to Sue Blodgett at [email protected]). Members should be identifying their organization’s web addresses for hot links to the Consortium website. We will be refining and updating the site during the year, so continue to watch for changes. Pre-listing workgroup report: The workgroup (Anderson, Bradbury, Deppe, Gleason, Kinkead, Kozak, McGovern, Moats, Robinson, Reeder) met on March 20th to discuss and review background to different pre- and post-listing ESA programs. The workgroup agreed the focus should be on pre-listing programs. The workgroup will meet again on April 3 and identify questions/topics for future discussions with NRCS and USFWS. An important aspect of this future discussion will be to gain better understanding of any potential regulatory risks to private landowners for establishing or modifying monarch habitat, with or without a pre-listing conservation plan, if the monarch is subsequently listed. It is anticipated within 6 weeks the workgroup will be prepared to provide options for the Consortium’s consideration. Subsequent to the meeting Eric Sachs asked to join the workgroup. Research update: Efforts to date and plans for the remainder of the year were summarized. This summer a multi-species milkweed survey across the state will be undertaken and the Iowa DNR multi-species survey on public/conservation land will be modified to explicitly include monarch butterflies and associated habitat. Demonstration and research plots for establishing milkweed stands by using ‘plugs’ or direct seeding will be initiated this spring on ISU research farms. Discussions then turned to what feedback should be provided to farmers or landowners that are requesting advice of establishing monarch habitat. At this time the optimum mixes of milkweeds, nectar plants and other species to serve monarchs in Iowa landscapes have not been determined. Once the Consortium’s research has progressed and there is a better understanding of the regulatory environment, then more technical/research-based advice will be shared through the Consortium’s extension/outreach component. However, several organizations have developed general seed mix recommendations for monarch and/or for other wildlife habitat. Consortium members who are being contacted by their constituency for information on establishing milkweed habitat or are volunteering to establish habitat are suggested to share the following advice: THE IOWA MONARCH CONSERVATION CONSORTIUM IS UNDERTAKING RESEARCH TO DETERMINE OPTIONS FOR ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING MONARCH BREEDING HABITAT BEST SUITED FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANDUSE SCENARIOS IN THE STATE. THE RESULTS OF THIS RESEARCH WILL BE USED TO PROVIDE

164 ADVICE TO FARMERS AND LANDOWNERS. IF YOU WISH TO START ESTABLISHING MONARCH HABITAT NOW, THE FOLLOWING ARE EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE INFORMATION ON ESTABLISHING MONARCH, POLLINATOR OR WILDLIFE BREEDING HABITAT. • Iowa Pheasants Forever: Native Seed Program • Iowa Prairie Network Iowa Prairie Network • Monarch Joint Venture: Create Habitat for Monarchs • Monarch Watch: Waystation Program, Milkweed Market • Xerces Society: Milkweed Project, Monarch Butterflies

It was also requested that consortium members keep a record of contact information of people (and if possible their locations) to facilitate future follow-up. Discussions then turned to the possibility of forming an ‘implementation issues workgroup’ that would work with farmers and other landowners from Consortium organizations to address logistical, financial, and other related issues/questions that will be important factors in an individual’s decision about establishing monarch habitat. Self-nominations to this new workgroup is requested by May 1st. Other Items: Further discussion included a proposal to establish additional workgroups that could address issues such as research, extension/outreach and communications. It is recommended that the ‘implementation issues workgroup’ and the pre-listing workgroup are sufficient at this time. The potential creation of additional workgroups is suggested as a topic for discussion at the next consortium meeting [note sue suggested one workgroup to help manage outreach efforts; direct people who are planning to establish monarch habitat to appropriate sources, prioritize outreach materials and efforts. Such a workgroup could include USFWS – Kraig; someone from Pheasants Forever; NRCS James Cronin; Iowa DNR, Bill Johnson, Katy Reeder, Jim Gulliford could be a good chair ]. The next Consortium meeting is anticipated for early June as a face-to-face session, with teleconferencing for those who cannot attend in person. Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium Strategic Goals and Operating Principals Approved: http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/4.1.2015-iowa-monarch-conservation-consortium- strategic-goals-and-operating-princ.pdf

ESA Workgroup 5/18/2015 Agenda Discussion on Draft Questions for USFWS and USDA NRCS

165 Draft Questions for USFWS and USDA NRCS USFWS 1. Assuming the monarch was listed, what types of activities could be considered to result in take and require an incidental take permit for a non-Federal landowner? For example, would use of glyphosate in a corn or soybean field be an issue? Would off-field pesticide exposure through drift or runoff be an issue? Removing milkweed from non-production land? 2. If the monarch were listed it seems ‘take’ will be a challenging issue given the species range that includes overlap with a diverse array of human activities (e.g., traffic on roads etc.). In the past, how has USFWS dealt with harm/take issues for routine activities of private landowners/citizens? Were they handled differently than activities undertaken by Federal landowners and/or activities funded by a Federal agency? Would these previous approaches be relevant in this case? 3. If private landowners begin to establish monarch breeding habitat and/or actively maintain or enhance existing breeding habitat prior to a USFWS listing decision and if the species is subsequently listed, will this habitat be considered part of the baseline? Will these landowners need to work with USFWS for incidental take permits if they need to modify the habitat? Would USFWS treat situations where the conservation efforts were based on a farmer’s use of NRCS support differently than situations where a farmer undertook the habitat conservation efforts independently? In situations where private landowners may have uncertainty as to the future regulatory environment (i.e., the outcome of a listing review), what can USFWS do to avoid the unintended consequence of a delay in establishing/maintaining breeding habitat, for example? 4. In approving Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs), how does USFWS determine that the ‘science’ and implementation of the habitat conservation measures and monitoring of the species populations are sufficiently rigorous to meet the standard for approval (i.e., the measures are sufficient to preclude the need for listing assuming other landowners in the species range adopted the same measures)? How does USFWS monitor the progress of a CCAA, which may have a time frame of several decades? Have there been any legal challenges to approved CCAAs or CCAs? 5. Is the USFWS piloting Pre-listing Conservation Actions, even though the regulation has not been issued final? If so, is it possible a pilot effort with the monarch could be undertaken. Could a PCA be ‘upgraded’ to a CCAA for non-Federal landowners and/or a Section 7 conference prior to the final listing of a species? USFWS and NRCS 1. We are aware of the Section 7 conference with USDA-NRCS for the sage grouse that created a pre-listing conservation plan. The plan can be converted to a final biological opinion if a listing decision occurs, which should reduce regulatory impacts by ensuring plan participants (Federal and non-Federal landowners) would receive incidental take coverage upon or soon after listing. In the USFWS approval of the Section 7 conference they recommended that non-Federal participants still create a CCAA to have assurance of no regulatory surprises if the grouse was

166 listed in the future. Could USFWS and NRCS walk us through this example (or a different example if it would be more relevant for the monarch) and explain the basics of the effort. Also please discuss the rational in the sage grouse case as to why the USFWS recommended that private landowners still proceed in establishing a CCAA – presumably a programmatic CCAA. 2. Would (are) the NRCS and USFWS considering a Section 7 conference pre-listing approach for the monarch in one or more of the states in the summer and spring breeding ranges? NRCS 1. Prior to the listing decision on the monarch, NRCS is developing recommendations for establishing/enhancing monarch breeding habitat. Is it possible NRCS could cease providing assistance to a farmer if they declined to employ the monarch conservation practices? Could their priority status change if they declined to employ monarch conservation measures? Meeting Notes Opening Discussion USFWS indicated the information provided in the workgroup’s working paper (Monarch Conservation and ESA Options: A Thought Starter) reasonably summarized background information on the ESA and the nature and attributes of post- and pre-listing conservation options that are available to non-Federal landowners. Before discussing the questions prepared by the workgroup, it was acknowledged that some of the questions could only be addressed generally or may have to be addressed as part of an on-going dialogue given specific aspects of monarch conservation are under study and/or some topics reflect broader policy issues that are under consideration within USFWS and/or NRCS. It was noted; however, that getting questions “on the table” and beginning the discussion was extremely useful in moving forward, even if some of the answers are uncertain at this time. Discussion on Questions (please refer to the workgroup’s paper: DRAFT Questions/Topics for USFWS and NRCS) Note: Federal agency responses to the workgroup’s questions, while consistent with USFWS and NRCS policies in general, do not reflect official positions of USFWS or NRCS concerning the monarch butterfly status review nor planned or on-going conservation activities as they may relate to the future listing decision. USFWS Questions: Question 1: It is possible that long-standing practices may be exempted from ‘take.’ For example, there are instances were 4(d) rules have been issued to exempt long-standing forestry management practices from ‘take’ for other species that were listed as threatened. While at this time it is not possible to make a definitive statement, it is possible that long-standing weed management practices in row crop agriculture could be viewed in a manner similar to the above forestry example. It was noted that removal of habitat from non-crop production land would likely be viewed differently than weed management within a production field.

167 Question 2. While it isn’t possible to provide ‘monarch-specific’ answers at this time, some general perspectives from past experiences are instructive. Generally, the approach to conservation/recovery of a species focuses first on protecting existing habitat and then on enhancing/establishing habitat in underutilized areas. A low priority is placed on general, long- standing activities. It was noted that under ESA Section 7(d) Federal agencies have to ensure their actions will not result in an irretrievable commitment, which could influence some USDA programs in theory, but probably not a likely scenario in this instance. As USFWS begins to review the ‘monarch science’ it will likely use the Species Status Assessment process to address issues reflected in question 2. This is a process that encourages public input and workgroup members noted the importance of providing ample time/opportunity to submit information to the Service during the SSA process for the monarch. Question 3. The first series of sub-questions begin to ‘engage’ different aspects of pre-listing options under the ESA (i.e., CCAs, CCAAs, PCAs and/or Section 7 conference reports) and the extent to which regulatory certainty/assurances are provided for implemented conservation actions and potential take issues. USFWS indicated they would elevate the last sub-question in #3 that addresses the unintended consequence of a delay in establishing/maintaining monarch breeding habitat because of uncertainty in how baseline/take will be addressed outside of an approved pre- listing program. It was agreed that clarification on this issue was very critical. Question 4. Due to time constraints the ‘nuts and bolts’ of how a CCAA is developed, reviewed and approved by USFWS was not addressed. It is suggested this be a topic for the next workgroup meeting. In the meantime, USFWS will research the last sub-question concerning whether or not there are (or have been) any legal challenges to approved CCAAs or CCAs, and if so, the nature of the complaints and if they have been resolved. Question 5. It was noted that USFWS Region 6 has been piloting the use of PCAs for other species (even though the regulation has not been finalized) and that a PCA-model could be a good approach in moving forward with the monarch. USFWS and NRCS Questions Question 1. NRCS walked through the Section 7 conference process for the sage grouse (please refer to the ‘Thought Starter’ paper for a brief summary of the general process). During the discussion it was stressed that for a rancher to have regulatory certainty/assurances they had to be participating in the sage grouse conservation program and undertake, as appropriate, the conservation practices specified in the Section 7 conference report. Ranchers that wish to participate in the sage grouse conservation program are required to work with NRCS conservation planners, develop a plan that meets landowner needs and follow the identified conservation measures specific for the species and implement the practices. It was also pointed out that the Section 7 conference report is not a ‘one and done.’ For example, additional conservation measures may be added or modified and performance of the conservation efforts need to be addressed. It was clarified that ranchers that are participating in the sage grouse conservation program (as described above) do not need to be covered under a CCAA to have regulatory

168 assurances. The USFWS recommendation in the conference report to develop a CCAA was directed to those private landowners that were involved in non-agricultural land use. Question 2. NRCS and USFWS acknowledged that a Section 7 conference approach would be logical for the monarch, but a decision has not been made at this time. The possibility of using this approach is under discussion within the USDA. NRCS Question Question 1. NRCS indicated that would not cease providing assistance to farmers that declined employing any future monarch conservation practices. It was acknowledged that NRCS priority ranking process could be influenced in the future if there were monarch conservation practices available. Action Items By COB May 26th, workgroup members to send to Steve any additional questions for USFWS and/or NRCS. Steve will consolidate the questions and send to USFWS and NRCS. By COB May 26th, USFWS and NRCS to send to Steve, who will share with the workgroup, best estimates on a timeframe to receive feedback on the outstanding issues noted above. After May 26th, Steve will work to schedule a follow-up meeting to address USFWS Question #4 and any additional questions submitted by workgroup members.

ESA Workgroup 6/12/2015 Participants: Kraig McPeek (USFWS), Gallon Hall (NRCS), Susan Kozak (IDALS), Katy Reeder (Iowa DNR), Aaron Brees (Iowa DNR), Ed Anderson (ISA), Scott Moats (TNC), Rick Robinson (IFBF), Ben Gleason (IACorn), Steve Bradbury (ISU) Agenda A. Summary of CCAAs and process (USFWS Question #4 from the question document). B. Discussion of follow-up questions from the May 18th teleconference. C. Status updates from USFWS and NRCS on outstanding topics from the May 18th meeting. D. Summary and Next Steps A) Summary of CCAAs and process (USFWS Question #4 from the question document). Kraig provided a general overview of the process (also see ‘thought starter paper’ for a summary). Monarch-specific description of a potential CCAA not possible at this time since critical science issues concerning monarch conservation are being studied and a summary of critical crop and livestock production practices that could interface with monarch conservation need to be identified. In general, as the ‘science’ of conservation for a specific species is resolved (e.g., key habitat needs- nature and extent, key aspects of life history during a year, etc.) and critical

169 production practices that interface with a species life history/habitat are identified a framework can developed with the goal of species recovery (which is the standard for a CCAA) that also incorporates other land use needs. Changes/adjustments in land management will likely be needed to achieve species recovery, but with a goal of flexibility and practicality in terms of current and future management practices. Kraig indicated that each CCAA will be different in terms of details based on the species, existing land use and related spatial and temporal considerations. The key is for all the parties and USFWS to work together from the start so needs of the species and landowners are known and shared to create a framework that can evolve to a CCAA if the species becomes a candidate for listing. B) Discussion of follow-up questions from the May 18th teleconference (see below). 1. Specifically, how will the agency analyze pre-listing efforts as they make a decision to list? In making a listing decision the Service evaluates 5 factors, including the nature of habitat requirements and current/anticipated changes to extent/quality; overuse of a species; disease/predation pressure; regulatory mechanisms, and other man-made stressors. In the process of a species status review the Service will evaluate any on-going conservation activities. Depending on the extent and success of pre-listing efforts and confidence of continued implementation, the proposed or final listing decision could be not to list, or list as threatened instead of endangered, or determine the species is warranted for listing, but preclude finalizing the listing as conservation proceeds, or list, but perhaps with a less intensive/extensive need for additional conservation practices. If the pre-listing activity(ies) included approved CCAA(s), then by definition the associated conservation efforts would have been approved as being sufficient to ensure recovery, assuming all landowners followed the same practices – hence a CCAA likely also reflects ‘the key ingredients’ that would be part of a listing decision and recovery plan. 2. Is there formal criteria to evaluate the efficacy of pre-listing efforts? A CCAA reflects conservations measures sufficient to support recovery, as noted above. A Prelisting Conservation Action (PCA) reflects conservation measures that are beneficial to the species, but not necessarily sufficient to ensure recovery. The specific criteria will vary with the species and recovery needs, but CCAAs are science-based (e.g., relationships between improved habitat and population response established, critical land management practices have been documented, evaluated and adapted as needed to ensure recovery while providing landowner flexibility, rigorous monitoring program to document outcomes). Governance of the CCAA must also be documented. 3. Are there examples of these types of efforts leading to decisions not to list? Galon provided examples of species that were not listed (Arctic Grayling, Bi-state sage grouse, Amargosa Toad), listed as threatened instead of endangered (Gunnison sage grouse, lesser prairie chicken), or delisted (Oregon Chub, Louisiana Black Bear) based on conservation programs. The sage grouse and New England cottontail decisions latter this year may demonstrate additional successful outcomes. 4. If there are, what facts were persuasive in their analysis?

170 In general, the results of these conservation measures met the recovery goals, or were anticipated to meet the recovery goals in the future, and there was confidence that the conservation programs would be maintained based on easements, resource commitments, etc. The details of the decisions are specific to the species, but would follow the principles outlined in previous questions. 5. Are there examples of pre-listing efforts for species that ultimately were included on the threatened/endangered species list? There were no specific examples; however, as noted above some species were listed as threatened instead of endangered based on pre-listing conservation programs. 6. How are pre-listing activities utilized in the development of a recovery plan if a species moves to the threatened/endangered species list? Please refer to question 1. In addition, Kraig pointed out that the listing decision and recovery plan process is now more integrated and engages public comment and input to help formulate conservation measures. 7. How are state agencies like the DNR involved with pre-listing options? Galon pointed out that in many of the efforts NRCS has managed under the working lands program, there is significant state agency involvement with financial resources or in-kind research/technical advice in developing conservation measures. As noted in previous workgroup discussions, programmatic CCAAs typical are implemented and managed through a state agency. 8. Does the DNR have the resources to implement these options? Both Iowa DNR and IDALS noted that monarch conservation is a priority issue in both organizations and related habitat management and/or monitoring efforts are underway/being adapted with Iowa DNR. As with all parties involved in the consortium, Iowa DNR and IDALS are in a learning phase. As the path forward gets refined, resource needs will become clear. Having said that, implementing a programmatic CCAA, for example, would require resources. 9. Do the different pre-listing options offer any means of Federal support to State agencies and/or flexibility in using existing Federal funds within related programs? Galon and Kraig both pointed out while direct funding may not be available in a pre-listing phase, there can be opportunities for indirect support through technical assistance, sharing the development of conservation practices that are mutually beneficial to state and Federal programs etc. Galon pointed out that a section 7 conference report is a way NRCS can more directly alleviate part of the resource ‘burn rate’ for state agencies. C) Status updates from USFWS and NRCS on outstanding topics from the May 18th meeting. Kraig indicated he has raised to HQ the question on legal challenges to approved CCAAs and CCAs and the question about regulatory assurances viz baseline prior to the establishment of a CCAA. When he hears back he’ll let us know.

171 Galon indicated that at this time NRCS was not planning on expanding their current portfolio of species under the working lands program to include a Section 7 conference for the monarch. However, that approach as a possibility for the future and has not been precluded. A potential decision to use this approach would reflect that USFWS, state agencies and private landowners along with NRCS had determined this to be an appropriate path forward and all were committed to invest resources in a collaborative effort. D) Summary and Next Steps Summary of key points. - Monarch conservation is a high priority in the USFWS and Federal government and there is a sense of urgency in moving forward. The species status review process under the ESA will likely not be moving at the same pace; i.e., it will lag behind conservation efforts. A listing decision is not going to happen for several years. Consequently, there is time to develop the science; explore effective, pragmatic conservation measures that meet recovery and ag production needs; and begin instituting conservation practices in a manner that can transition into a pre-listing agreement that provides regulatory assurances if the species becomes a candidate for listing. It was discussed that a sound conservation plan and its implementation (the strategic goal of the Iowa Consortium) could help to preclude the need to list and then obviate the ESA regulatory issues. It was also agreed that all parties working together should start scoping out a framework to a conservation plan as the initial step forward. The effort would help provide more specific insights as to key steps needed for advancing monarch conservation and frame topics for a potential pre- listing action in the future. This initial effort would include summarizing the nature and status of scientific gaps that need to be addressed to support a conservation plan, identifying critical crop and livestock management practices that will interface with conservation practices, and formulating outreach approaches to gain additional input and feedback from farmers and private landowners. Next Steps – Under the assumption that the Consortium will meet in August, the workgroup should anticipate providing a report out at that time. It was agreed that the workgroup would summarize key ESA background information and pre-listing options at the meeting. It was also agreed that the workgroup would emphasize that moving forward with conservation can be integrated, in an orderly fashion, with developing a pre-listing program with regulatory assurances if it is needed in the future. By developing and refining a conservation framework and beginning implementation, in coordination with USFWS and NRCS, as the monarch science and land management practice needs are refined, the Consortium members will be advancing measures that could preclude the need for listing. If in the future listing seems likely, the parties to the conservation plan would be well positioned to convert their efforts to a CCAA, for example, and thereby have regulatory assurances for conservation measures underway and planned. It was agreed that the workgroup would strive to meet the week of July 20th for an all day, face-to- face meeting (with telecon back-up) to scope out key elements of a framework to share with the Consortium in August. A meeting venue between Des Moines/Ames and the Quad cities will be explored.

172 Please let Steve know of dates of days during the week of July 20th that have conflicts. A data will be selected that captures a reasonable cross section of the workgroup.

ESA Workgroup 7/23/2015

Neal Smith Wildlife Refuge – Prairie Visitor and Learning Center

Meeting objectives

a. Scope out elements of a monarch conservation framework, including initial definition of key monarch habitat/life history characteristics, and potential agricultural and non- agricultural land management practices that can/will likely interface with conservation efforts b. Outline governance elements of a conservation plan c. Identify next steps

Participants: Pam Bachman, Aaron Brees, Steve Bradbury, James Cronin, Matt Deppe, Doug Helmers, Ben Gleason, Susan Kozak; Joe McGovern, Kraig McPeek, Scott Moats, Tyler Grant, Theo Gunther, Katy Reeder, Rick Robinson.

Meeting objectives a. Scope out elements of a monarch conservation framework, including initial definition of key monarch habitat/life history characteristics, and potential agricultural and non-agricultural land management practices that can/will likely interface with conservation efforts

b. Outline governance elements of a conservation plan

c. Identify next steps

Recap of previous workgroup discussions

A brief summary was provided of previous workgroup meetings that led to the decision to hold a one-day meeting to work through specific elements of a monarch conservation plan, taking into account the potential of a future listing decision (see previous workgroup meeting minutes as needed).

Overview of USFWS monarch conservation plan and ESA status review

Monarch conservation is a high priority in the USFWS and Federal government and there is a sense of urgency in moving forward. The species status review under the ESA will not be moving at the same pace as the conservation effort; i.e., the deliberations on the listing issue will likely lag behind the conservation efforts. A proposal to list, not list, or determine warranted for listing, but

173 preclude action, is not going to happen for several years. Consequently, there is time to develop the conservation science; explore effective, pragmatic conservation measures that meet recovery and agricultural production needs; and begin instituting and documenting conservation practices and results. It was discussed that a sound conservation plan and its implementation (the strategic goal of the Iowa Consortium) could help to preclude the need to list and thus obviate any potential ESA regulatory issues in the future. If needed in the future, a well-crafted and implemented conservation plan could be converted in an orderly and timely manner into a pre-listing agreement that provides regulatory assurances, if the species becomes a candidate for listing. There is sufficient time to craft and implement a scientifically-sound and practical monarch conservation plan, which if successful could provide the USFWS the record to determine there is no need to list the monarch and, if necessary, to defend any legal challenge to such a determination.

Key aspects of monarch biology/habitat needs

Doug Helmers provided a powerpoint that outlined key aspects of monarch life history, its migration patterns and habitat needs, population trends over the last 20 years and remaining scientific issues concerning species conservation measures (see attached powerpoint). A USGS workgroup estimates that the size of the overwintering monarch population needs to increase from approximately 1 ha of forest cover to 6 ha (or 225 million monarchs) by 2020 to have a population sufficiently resilient to extreme climatic events in the spring or summer breeding ranges or in the overwintering habitat. At this time, assuming the overwintering habitat remains protected, improved reproduction in the spring and summer breeding ranges is the key factor for recovery. In turn, expanding the quantity and quality of monarch breeding habitat is needed to support increased reproduction. Additional milkweed are required for ovipositioning and larval development. Additional forage (nectar) plants are needed to support the adult monarchs during breeding and migrations. USGS is developing an initial population model and decision-support system that will provide a first approximation of the amount of additional breeding habitat required to reach the 2020 goal. The support system will provide habitat estimates at the county level for states in the monarch central flyway. The model may be released to the public latter this summer. Initial modeling results indicate that to reach the recovery goal, expanded habitat will be required in the spring and summer breeding ranges and will need to include public (e.g., Federal, State, county land; road rights of way, utility easements, etc.) and private land, with agricultural land area not in active production providing the most significant amount of land area available for habitat expansion. In terms of monitoring the status and trends of breeding habitat and larval populations, it was discussed that on-site sampling protocols are reasonably well-developed and research to develop probabilistic survey designs that could aggregate monitoring data with statistical confidence within and across states of the US is being initiated.

Key discussion points concerning the state of the science are as follows. Reducing uncertainties in understanding attributes of breeding habitat quality over time and the dimensions and spatial arrangements of habitat patches will influence estimates of needed breeding habitat acres. To support population modeling and associated conservation planning and monitoring efforts, it will be necessary to integrate GIS layers from multiple sources and maintain habitat data across public and private land uses; representatives from Iowa DNR and IDALS discussed efforts within the State of Iowa and perhaps across Midwestern states that could facilitate addressing this issue. In addition to research on monarch biology and habitat, it was suggested that the ISU Iowa Farm and

174 Rural Life Poll include a component to assess farmer perspectives on monarch conservation needs and willingness/concerns for implementing conservation practices.

It was discussed that while science-based refinements to conservation efforts will be needed to optimize ‘return on investments’ as the years proceed, given the current state of knowledge important progress can be made now to demonstrate habitat establishment and maintenance practices, create new habitat and build collaborative partnerships across public and private landowners. In this regard the group ‘hypothesized’ that initial emphasis on habitat expansion/maintenance efforts on public lands (including Federal, State, and county protected lands, roadsides, abandoned mine reclamation sites, etc.) could support the establishment of larger, more permanent habitat patches. Establishment of a larger number of smaller habitat patches, primarily associated with agricultural lands, would then follow. This phased approach would help demonstrate trust in the public-private collaboration to monarch conservation and provide additional time to refine habitat management practices for farmers and livestock producers as well as modeling efforts to support siting-recommendations for new patches on agricultural land. Having said that, it was recommended that farmers and livestock producers be provided 3 to 5 practices they could implement immediately to support conservation and it was recommended that leading farmer/livestock producers within the Iowa associations be actively engaged in habitat conservation research/demonstration projects, and related outreach efforts, to support the ‘ramp- up’ of conservation efforts in the coming years.

Agricultural and non-agricultural land use/land management practices that may conflict with monarch conservation practices

The discussion of agricultural/livestock production practices that could interface with monarch conservation practices generally centered on the definition of monarch ‘habitat’ and the extent to which an ag/livestock practice was a long standing practice. While the nature of the discussion was caveated by USFWS participants as not being an expression of policy positions concerning the on-going monarch listing evaluation, the general direction of the discussion was characterized to be reasonably consistent with positions held by the Service in other species deliberations.

The control of weeds (including milkweeds) and insect pests within a crop field/pasture would likely not be considered ‘take’ if the monarch was listed because pest management could be considered a longstanding practice. In addition, a ‘volunteer’ milkweed stem outside a production field/pasture would likely not be considered monarch ‘habitat’, while an existing or deliberately established patch of milkweed plants (perhaps including any associated nectar plants) outside an active production/grazing area could be considered habitat. The latter scenario raised the question of whether or not there could be any ESA consequences associated with potential off-field herbicide or insecticide exposure to a habitat patch as well as potential consequences of removing a habitat patch in the future (e.g., converting CRP fields with monarch habitat(s) back into production fields; or establishing a building on an existing habitat patch). While the discussion did not provide additional examples of land practices that could interface monarch conservation efforts, these are likely illustrative of the fundamental policy questions and concerns.

The conversation then returned to the ‘regulatory’ significance of these agricultural practices, with reference to an unlisted species, a candidate species or a listed species. For a listed species the

175 potential complexity and transactional costs associated with these example practices are the most extreme. Consistent with the Consortium’s goal of proactively advancing monarch conservation, and an earlier workgroup conclusion to address pre-listing options, the meeting’s discussion then focused on candidate or unlisted species scenarios. Please refer to previous workgroup documents for a general discussion on incidental take and habitat conservation plans for private landowners in the context of a listed species.

Currently, the monarch has no designation under the ESA and as a result there are no regulatory implications under the Act in terms of the above mentioned agricultural practices (but note, use instructions on pesticide labels that specify application requirements to reduce potential effects on off-site, non-target species need to be followed for FIFRA compliance regardless of the monarch’s listing status). If the monarch became a candidate species for listing, then an approved pre-listing conservation plan could provide regulatory assurances for on-going and future land management practices, consistent with the approved plan.

The possibility was discussed that farmers/livestock producers may defer establishing/maintaining monarch habitat to reduce uncertainty in losing future flexibility in land management options if the species becomes listed and/or they could wait to get engaged in a pre-listing conservation effort until a listing seems likely. The group discussed that this behavior (failure in implementing a monarch conservation practices or delaying implementation of practices until the ‘11th hour’) could then create the unintended consequence of providing USFWS minimal information and data to reasonably support a decision to not list the species and/or result in a hastily prepared and implemented pre-listing conservation plan that may be difficult for the USFWS to approve and defend if challenged.

While there are no guaranteed ‘risk-free’ recommendations that can be provided to farmers and livestock producers, the group agreed that the lowest risk scenario is to proactively develop and implement a sound Iowa monarch conservation plan, in coordination with USFWS and USDA, well in advance of the listing decision. This scenario, at worst, would provide the means to convert the plan to a programmatic candidate conservation agreement with assurances (for example) in an orderly and timely manner and realize regulatory assurance of flexibility in agricultural practices, consistent with monarch recovery, to the maximum extent possible. In the best case, the outcome of the conservation plan and its continued implementation could provide the USFWS the record to defend a no listing decision - and as a result there would be no loss in flexibility for farmers and livestock producers due to regulatory constraints under the ESA.

Discussion of governance elements for a conservation plan

Key elements identified:

Oversight of the development and implementation of a plan should involve a governing body that represents all the public and private organizations that are actively engaged and include on-going coordination and communication with USFWS and USDA to gain timely feedback, technical support and confirmation of conservation activities being undertaken through Federal programs and on Federal lands within Iowa.

176 Within the public and private sectors, each respective organization will need to establish or augment existing organizational infrastructure and processes to manage their responsibilities within the plan. There may be a need for organizations within the public and private sectors to form respective sub-groups/committees to coordinate/optimize efforts.

An initial set of components likely to be in a conservation plan were outlined and included the scientific framework to the conservation effort; description of adaptive conservation and land management practices and approaches and how they will be implemented and tracked; information/data management; monitoring to assess performance outcomes; and communication and outreach.

Overall meeting conclusion

It was agreed that the workgroup would propose to the full consortium a draft monarch conservation plan framework. Following adoption of the framework, it should be made publicly available, in part to facilitate discussions within USDA and USFWS. The framework would subsequently be expanded to a draft plan for review by the full consortium.

The proposed framework and subsequent plan would not be titled a ‘pre-listing conservation plan’: however, the text would be clear that the conservation plan was developed with the intention that its successful implementation will lead to recovery of monarch populations, which in turn would help preclude the need to list the monarch and thereby obviate any potential ESA regulatory issues. If the species becomes a candidate for listing in the future, the text would indicate the intention to convert the implemented conservation plan though an orderly and timely process into a pre-listing agreement with the USFWS that will establish regulatory assurances.

Next steps

Several immediate to longer term action items were identified, all of which related to realizing the overall goal described in the meeting conclusions.

1. Steve will ascertain the timeframe for the next consortium meeting to facilitate scheduling the workgroup’s milestones for developing and presenting a draft conservation framework.

2. Steve will contact the ISU Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll about including monarch conservation questions; please provide Steve example questions as soon as possible.

3. Joe M. has contacted the executive director of the Iowa Association of County Conservation Boards to recommend they request to join the Iowa Consortium. This will help close the loop for a critical component of Iowa public lands.

4. Iowa DNR and IDALS will confirm status of IDOT activities and ensure their future coordination within the conservation plan; Iowa DNR and IDALS will also ascertain status of existing state GIS systems that may be available to the effort.

177 5. A subset of workgroup members will establish a proposed list of 3 to 5 conservation practices that farmers and livestock producers could implement now to support monarch conservation.

6. Each organization to begin ascertaining the extent to which they need to develop or modify existing organizational and data management infrastructure based on existing conservation programs.

7. USFWS and USDA to update their respective HQ offices on the status of the Iowa effort and to the extent possible ascertain if a Section 7 conference approach is possible in the near future. Short of confirming a Section 7 conference at the fall consortium meeting, confirming the level of USFWS and USDA technical assistance and other resources available to the consortium will be critical.

8. USFWS to report back current estimated dates for public release of the USGS population model, decision-support system and monitoring white paper.

9. Members of the ESA workgroup will work with USDA to ensure that options for milkweed/nectar plantings in new and existing CRP enrollments are being consistently documented, communicated and encouraged in Iowa, including the development of a consistent approach by FSA biologists to address any producer concerns raised about potential regulatory risks if a future ESA listing; i.e., FSA needs to clearly and consistently communicate the potential regulatory risks will be less with increased monarch conservation.

Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium 1/28/2016 Iowa Farm Bureau

Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Review Agenda • Consortium Member Updates • Report Out and Recommendations from the ESA Workgroup . Overview of ESA Listing Process and Conservation Options . Proposal to Develop an Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy . Proposed Near-term Conservation Practices . Consortium Discussion on Workgroup Recommendations • Keystone Monarch Collective and Iowa Consortium • Consortium Next Steps • Adjourn

178 Consortium Updates • ISU Research Team o 1.5 million in competitive grants o Recruited grad students o Preparing to create research plots throughout Iowa o Grant fund research for monarch breeding habitat, nutrient management project, Iowa Pork Producers grant, and Iowa Soybean grant—attend tomorrow for more detail • Kelly Meyers o Summary of Oct 2015 meeting with Fish and Wildlife agencies, Consortium members, Dept of Ag . What is the state’s role . Avoid duplicating efforts . Resulted in a summary document given to Midwest . Need to ensure coordination and appropriate credit for voluntary conservation efforts • INHF/TNC/US Fish and Wildlife received grant for I-35 corridor for new prairie plantings from NFWF; grant $400,000 • Submit proposals for a new grant coming out • Dept of Ag/Soil and Water 247,000 grant private lands • NRCS perspective o Producers receive financial assistance for establishing pollinator habitat • Kraig McPeek USFWS o Another conference in Davenport in June 26 o 280 people last year o Chip Taylor with the Monarch watch will be keynote o Show Iowans what is going on • Wendy Wintersteen o Ag and conservation groups coming together Report Out and Recommendations from the ESA Workgroup • Whether to list monarchs as endangered • Workgroup to examine current status and endangered species policies • Opportunity for diverse organizations to come together to launch conservation efforts • Need to turn numbers around with habitat improvement while continuing with necessary agriculture • ESA came up Kraig McPeek Fish and Wildlife Service • Updated group about endangered species act (ESA) o Outside entity has asked USFWS to consider monarch . 90 days from petition to determine if it is warranted

179 . Can only use records in our possession . Made in Dec 2014 (positive finding) . Then 12 months to request info from partners . Notice of lawsuit—because process has taken more than 12 months . It is not unusual for it to take more than 12 months . Time frame for decision is difficult to estimate . Given the history, and time it takes for other species notice of intent—it will be a number of years before they will have the information to make a decision . Species status assessment framework . Litigation will affect timing, but the decision is not going to be immediate • Species Status Assessment (SSA) Framework • What info is available during process? • 3 lenses o What is happening to monarch individuals? o What is happening to population o What is happening to species . Resiliency . Redundancy . Representation • PECE-policy is used for the evaluation of Conservation efforts o Must work together o Engage in a pre-listing environment to come up with a decision because it affects everyone . How certain are we that it will happen? . How certain it will be effective? • Monarch currently has no protection under endangered species act-no status o 12-month determination—after decision, species becomes a candidate o Conservation plans can begin even before it is listed, such as state conservation/management plans o Once it is listed, there are more regulations in place o **make a plan that will allow easy transition to a document that is ready to serve as a post-listing document—threatened status . Use CCAs and CCAAs once it is listed, and allows those that volunteered to not be asked to make additional changes o Now is valuable—we have the most flexibility now—for research and land alteration o Fish and Wildlife has no authority until listed so they ask partners to take leadership roles • These types of plans have affected listing decision in the past—there is a model to follow that demonstrates effectiveness • Can leads to conservation success regardless of whether species is listed or not

180 • Being able to show the plan and the process is very important to be able to adjust plan if needed • Don’t get tied up in the what-ifs. There is no status, but there is a process going now. Now is the time to be talking. Early engagement is key. Group proposed to pursue a “win win” situation—start conservation efforts now while there is less regulation; if listing is avoided, saves effort for USFWS for future regulation • Discussed features for a conservation strategy • Research efforts progress to fill in knowledge gaps • Will need a database • Will explore different sectors for habitat development • Outreach efforts will be essential • Build on success of other projects: New England cottontail • Consider crossover and build on efforts of Nutrient Reduction Strategy Reasons for Creating a Strategy • Get organized. • Pool resources. • Meet goal of Consortium. • Success will require a coordinated effort. • Iowa will be a leader; national model for success • Proactive rather than reactive Cons • Resources, time Decision is to move forward with creation of an Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy in 2016; next step is to develop a work plan for strategy creation

Proposed Near-term Conservation Practices -people are asking questions, farmer, homeowners—what can I do? • Five Conservation Actions • Action 1—farm bill o 2008 Farm Bill supports pollinators o FSA—cropland focus o NRCS-some farm but other options too • Example CRP: pollinator habitat. Not specific design for monarch, but will benefit them 41,000 acres enrolled currently; 30,000 enrolled for 2016. Landowners/producers are already taking notice • Mid Contract Management MCM • 1.6 million acres in Iowa for CRP—limited things to improve habitat

181 • MCM must be done once during contract; can also be voluntary. Example burn, disking, spraying, interseeding o Do this in a way that would support pollinator habitat o **Pollinator friendly interseeding mixes are available for cost share for all CRP practices • NRCS available programs—EQIP, WRP, CSP, (easements as well) • NRCS is developing monarch habitat (See slide) • Action 2—for the whole general public; monarch waystation (Monarch watch), o get info out to be able to implement o Monarch joint venture o Plant.grow.fly—Blank Park Zoo o Million Pollinator Garden Challenge (national network; certification program) • Action 3—roadsides and Rights-of-Way o Underutilized areas . Mow around/spray around milkweeds • Action 4—use pesticides according to label o Monitor for off-site effects of pesticides • Action 5—volunteer o Plot set up o Allow others to monitor their land . Citizen Science Opportunities (MN)—larval monitoring and Monarch Watch (monarch tagging) (how we learned Iowa is such a critical location for conservation) . Communities: garden, zoo, county nature centers, These five actions are approved by Consortium for promotion to encourage monarch conservation efforts to begin now.

Keystone (Sachs) Monsanto • Keystone Collaborative (national level organization) of similar interest • Late 2014, several informal meetings and provide informal meeting facilitation between several organizations to find common ground • **Make progress together** • Monarch Collaborative—use private land for monarch conservation • More focused on agricultural lands—look for productive ag and monarch conservation at the same time • Focus on creating awareness; engage farmers and landowners • What landowners can do o Leave existing milkweed o Seek out information o Expand the effect-take action

182 o Share success • Went public on January 22 with Monarch Collaborative • Objectives common between national Keystone Collaborative and the Monarch Consortium (this group is welcome to join) • Tools for communicating—share resources…

Next Steps Decision is to move forward with creation of an Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy in 2016; next step is to develop a work plan for strategy creation The five actions for monarchs are approved by Consortium for promotion to encourage monarch conservation efforts to begin now.

Monarch Consortium Research Update 1/29/2016 Wallace Building, Room 2 North, Des Moines, IA Development of Science-Based Information to Support Iowa Monarch Butterfly Conservation Agenda • Welcome and Introductions – K. Myers, Iowa DNR Administrator, Conservation and Recreation Division; S. Blodgett, ISU, Chair Entomology and Natural Resource Ecology and Management Departments • Updates o I. Status of Iowa Monarchs and Their Habitat . Baseline data from the Iowa DNR Species Inventory and Monitoring program. S. Dinsmore, ISU-NREM. . 2015 Milkweed Survey. R. Hartzler, ISU-AGRON http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/1.29.2016-isu-hartzler-research- update.pdf . Estimate of the number of milkweeds lost and remaining in the Midwest. J. Pleasants, ISU-EEOB http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/1.29.2016-isu-pleasants-research- update-with-updated-data-from-2016.pdf o II. Propagating Monarch Breeding Habitat . Habitat succession surveys. B. Wilsey, ISU-EEOB http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/1.29.2016-isu-wilsey-research- update.pdf

183 . 2015 Demonstration and pilot sites. R. Hellmich, ARS, ISU-ENT http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/1.29.2016-isu-hellmich-research- update.pdf . Overview of NFWF grant: Monarch butterfly flyway. J. McGovern (?), INHF . What is Iowa DNR doing for monarch habitat and how it’s being accomplished. B. Johnson, Iowa DNR, Prairie Resources Seed Unit http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/1.29.2016-idnr-johnson-research- update.pdf

. Overview of NFWF grant: Habitat on marginal lands. S. Kozak, IDALS . Overview of NRCS, ISA and IPPA grants. S. Blodgett o III. Habitat Characteristics and Monarch Utilization . Milkweed species preference: larval growth and adult oviposition. V. Pocius, ISU-EEOB. . Milkweed patch size: Impact on monarch activity and behavior. T. Blader, ISU-ENT http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/1.29.2016-isu-blader-research- update.pdf . Modeling monarch egg production in spatially-explicit Iowa landscapes. T. Grant, ISU- NREM. http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/1.29.2016-isu-grant-research- upate.pdf o IV. Knowledge Gaps/Research Needs – Round Table Discussion • 12:00 pm – Adjourn

ESA Workgroup Teleconference 3/14/2016 Participants: USFWS, IDALS, Iowa DNR, USDA NRCS, The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Monsanto, ISU Agenda • Introductions • News and Updates • Review Our Charge from the Consortium Meeting – Develop a Workplan for Review • (Our charge at this point is to frame options for how to build the state monarch conservation plan, including resource estimates and time line options) • Begin initial brain-storm discussion on key features for the first version of a State • Monarch Conservation Plan and areas of expertise we should consider for developing the plan and timelines (see attached our annotated outline) • Timing of a State Summit/Public Meeting on the Strategy

184 • Proposal for a one-day meeting to prepare a first draft of the work plan • Next Steps

Meeting Notes

News and Updates • USFWS provided an update on F&W monarch listing o Will form a group to do a species status assessment for monarchs o Three Rs are being reviewed for monarchs o Lawsuit filed last week—that F&W has not made finding within 12 month period- common for it to take longer than 12 months to allow time for a good decision to be made o F&W will say they don’t have the staff to look at this o The best way to help F&W is to collect information for Iowa in a way that can be fed into the decision-making process Review Our Charge from the Consortium Meeting – Develop a work plan for Review

• Logical next step is to put together a work plan to outline the strategy • Estimate level of effort (people, other resources, skill sets, time) • Make sure people are on board with creating a work plan—Group agreed! • Strategy outline discussion o Must document effort and development of sound practices for conservation o Justify (with research) that when efforts are implemented that they will actually have the desired outcome o Work plan can have narrow scope originally that can then be expanded once successful o Connect with other groups doing similar conservation efforts—Xerces, NFWF, Pheasants Forever, etc o In 3.0, Look at species and habitat roles . Hurdle to action plan: having estimates of milkweed density in different land covers—need baselines and monitoring methods o 4.0 Species Conservation in Iowa o 4.1 to 4.5 o Best management practices? Anything to discuss? . key element: notion of shift portions of farmland that are not productive back into buffer strips for pollinators/monarchs. (bring this up in the future) . Urban groups—municipalities? Park districts. Mayors will be interested… . include in all levels of government instead of only local, and county o 4.6 Research and 4.7 outreach

185 . using outline from New England Cottontail. Meant to be a starting point… . section will review ISU research and other topics . will be updated as research progresses “living document” . Who will be monitoring? Citizen science? • Will have details to work out • Extension/Outreach: work plan will include just the principals, not specifics o 5.0 decision making and feedback: . Steve V1 and V2 may be short principals of how we will go about doing it. Begin by acknowledging that we need to know what sections will entail even if all info is not available yet. Recognize our system will have to be built to accommodate new information . Rick (IFB): signature page, IFB is resistant to signing the document . Steve: challenge is to create a document that will invite commitment from organizations across iowa . John, FSA, in Federal memorandum of understanding (MOU)—need time to assess before they sign a document—need ASAP Timing of a State Summit/Public Meeting on the Strategy

• Bring people together that are working to benefit monarchs o When, who to help?

ESA Workgroup Monarch Work Plan Drafting Session 1 4/21/ 2016 Participants: Iowa DNR, Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Corn Growers Association, The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, USFWS, Monsanto, ISU

Agenda

Create Monarch Work Plan outline Timeline Mid-April: Work Plan Drafting Session Mid-May: Proposed Work Plan to Consortium by mid-June Mid-June: Consortium endorsement Prior to harvest/after harvest: Initial rollout of first round of communications

186 Notes Review work plan and goals • Goal is to create a plan that is easy to transition to a CCA if necessary • Work plan will provide level of effort, timeline, and will explain what content will be included in V1 • Petition to F&W is pushing timeline forward. o Will need to be able to show there is evidence of voluntary conservation efforts and that these efforts will actually happen • Summer/early fall have a completed document for F&W to point t • Conserve species, flexible format, don’t list  win/win/win Other efforts Needs to be a regional movement (not just Iowa) as well. Midwest down to Texas. Summit: ask for input sooner rather than later—for all of Iowa -Have options: once version 1 is done, a public process can be formed around feedback on Version 1—changes from V2. Consortium booth at Pollinator Conference-yes Questionnaire for Nebraska a draft that could be modified Governor’s conference in Iowa in July 14-17 good visibility Consider engaging and uniting county level efforts Consider using website to extend reach: recognize different audiences, email blasts Encourage all groups to add a monarch blurb on each website—link back and forth to www.iowamonarchs.info Entomology Society presence…could consider exhibitor

Work Plan Outline Discussion • Document management? o CyBox—create folder • Signatures discussion: signatures don’t commit to land on the ground— o Maybe should be an authorship page. o Will set up a separate meeting with interested organizations and lawyers if needed • Executive Summary: o 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 will all be needed in V1 (Iowa DNR lead with support from ISU) o 2.4 and 2.5-V1 (Iowa DNR lead with support from ISU) o 3.0-Iowa specific; will be in version 1

187 . what metrics qualify as habitat . number of milkweed stems . data is limited… need a baseline. What are the data sources right now/ . multiple species inventory and monitoring . Hartzler roadside surveys . monarch larval monitoring project . using national models to pare down to Iowa data . we do have national goals. Many assumptions of what is out there now . science and monitoring will be developed along the way… identify high quality . Tell what we do and don’t know. Don’t commit to acres. Committed to cooperation. . How much is being done- Need a way to track—add that in the plan o 4.0 add what is happening to conserve… and update with each revision . add status section… Accomplishments o 4.1 in version 1 essential; need cross section of organizations to be successful o 4.2 (later- list things we need to figure out) o 4.3 (later- list things we need to figure out) o Monitoring—different from protocols that the Monarch Partnership is working on; put placeholder protocols in o Mostly citizen science: Neal Smith is one of the three experiments this year o Measure goals: how to measure goals—feds, statistical designs—get as far as possible . Many acres will be on private land. Need to start discussion sooner rather than later about. Scope/options . Scale of acres implemented: “under construction.” Needs consistency but we don’t need GPS coordinates. Aggregated: state, county. . Survey seed suppliers—how much are they selling? . Registered Monarch Watch gardens, or Plant/Grow.Fly registrations . Track habitat implementation—then also track population recovery o 4.4 Landowner… version 1 . NRCS/FSA are tracking efforts through Farm Bill. o 4.5 work in progress o BMPs-- managing roadsides or Highlight 5 conservation efforts. Do outreach and communication. How everyone will help. . will tap into BMPs that others are creating . Keystone efforts can be utilized o 4.6: Version 1; ISU lead o 4.7: Outreach . Cross organization. Consider message, communication network, delivery venues. General goals, venues, Get a working group started. . Other organizations that are doing outreach currently. Bring them in…

188 . Is there a directory of different groups or potential offerings for a way for people to establish habitat. Help someone else? Directory. o 5.0: for the future o 6.0 Budget. What we have done so far. Guesstimate when for V2. Careful of commitment/detail. . Follow outline of cottontail… Version 1—lets not get hung up on dollars. . Could document dollars in monarch initiative: money documented for Iowa. NFWF. NRCS grant. Document being written—many people helping. o Appendices: . establish that we put together By-laws. Will have some work groups. We don’t know who they are. We have process. Executive Committee. Show we have the management infrastructure.

ESA Workgroup Monarch Work Plan Drafting Session 2 4/29/2016 Participants: Iowa DNR, USDA NRCS, Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, Iowa Corn Grower’s Association, IDALS, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, USFWS, Monsanto, ISU

Agenda • Review Background and Strategy for Moving Forward Review Current Work Plan Outline • Discuss Outline – refine, revise, modify as needed • Working Lunch • Break into writing groups to create a 1st draft of selected sections of the Work Plan • Share progress with the group • Discuss next steps • Discuss 5 Actions for Monarchs—Conservation Practices (see Attached Draft) – if time permits • Final Ramp Up Meeting Notes Administration Recruitment draft Administration (V1) (Organization structure options; e.g., an executive committee; a technical committee; working group(s) for information and adaptive management; research and monitoring; land management; extension/outreach). Also lay out connection to Feds, other states. (This needs to be a clear framework, even if the committees slated for formation in the next version) **(Representative cross section of Consortium groups prepare this section)

189 Additional administration discussion: Necessary to ensure that the Strategy is successfully implemented, especially since the Consortium has already formed and will play a significant role. How to invite/integrate additional groups? Sort of a disclaimer that non-Consortium groups are not necessarily excluded. “We’re always looking for more help, resources, etc.” Want people/groups who have something to offer to feel an opportunity to be included Meant to be a statewide Strategy, not tied to any one particular sector, etc, etc. Emphasize the living document aspect of the Strategy. If/when other organizations join, helping to guide them towards buy-in Is there any value in saying that this is a Monarch (Habitat) Enhancement strategy, rather than CONSERVATION strategy? Emphasis on growing/sustaining the population… Exec Committee: group(s) assuming the most risk/commitment • Is the Consortium, by definition, if you’re a member you HAVE signed on to the strategy? Or, a situation where some organizations that are/aren’t MEMBERS are still ex • We envision that the administration • Multiple options for the ways that participating organizations • Use Exec committee to vet/confirm/recommend different options for thorny problems • Exec to meet at least once a year, NOT more than quarterly • John: will committees be empowered to immediately address problems? Or different process? • V1 will work through how we might address these types of issues • If someone wants to form a workgroup, they need to ask the Exec committee first • Steve: also keep in mind the role of the ex-officio members, stay current on policy issues, etc. • USDA, FWS won’t be involved in decision making, but rather in general discussions

Technical committee Implementation committee

Info/education/outreach • e.g. the Exec committee sets the strategy for info/ed/outreach • Put the SKILLS on the Info committee and have them bring ideas to the Exec committee • Examples through CSIF, Clean Water Iowa,

190 v1 will say, “we know we need to do monitoring…” while v2 will actually tackle the HOW; ideas like getting Accomplishments to Exec committee, getting sign-off, then coordinating roll-out across Consortium members… Keep the message broad, insert quotes based on member reps. Exec leadership would be responsible for bringing skeptics to middle ground Generally, what will be addressed in the strategy? • Who will be the representatives (or rep organizations) on the Exec committee? • Higher level coordination (Keystone, other national/regional, commodities, land grants)

Identify who will need to complete work, what skills are needed to write? How many people? • Govt: Iowa DNR, IDALS, • Education: ISU (Luther, Dordt, Central) • NGO: commodities, FB, conservation • Private sector/Agribusiness: seed, chem, utilities

Identify any issues that will need further discussion with the full group? • Exec to meet 1-3 times per year? • Are we expecting Core group to also start drafting by-laws? NO, NOT BEFORE JULY. • Comfortable with Exec committee recommending the reps for 3 sub committees? • Decide what it means to join the Consortium versus sign on to the Strategy • Explore options for how to consolidate practices (soil, water, pollinators, etc, etc) BMPs…

How long will it take to write? • Ben: probably two face-to-fact meetings for drafting (one up front and one near the end) • Electronic in the interim • Total estimated time… 6-8 weeks (so, May + June) to produce a near-final draft by late June • Consortium likely scheduled for late June • Final review and comments due to Jacque by mid-August

Landowner recruitment Shifting gears to Landowner Recruitment (added Helmers, Cronin) • How do we get milkweed into pasture?

191 • If producer is going to implement pollinator habitat, is there a requirement or mechanism for producer to report back within (2 years??) or is it a spot-check for compliance? Planted vs. established?? • how do we establish a baseline or set a goal for the Consortium related to private lands? • $4mil (2 for EQIP, 2 for WRP) across 10 states… in Iowa, about $150-200K for EQIP, o Document how many producers are turned away o Use this to illustrate pent-up demand o Then think about spray drift mgmt, roadside, other related practices even WITHOUT EQIP

• initial step could be… all contract funds are committed and now there’s a waiting list, with success determined by HOW LONG the waiting list is… • Two different paths… launch program on Day 1, money spent by Day 15… or funds get rolled out and there’s money left on the table • limited number of producers in the state (see Ag Census) so what is our goal to reach a certain percentage of those, and from those, a number who actually implement quantify against Ag Census data • idea… postcards went out in the 10-state region to WRP participants, do a poll • recruitment may look like recommending BMPs (protect existing milkweed on farm property) and folding that into the 5 Things to encourage participation with or without incentives, cost share, etc. • the more we can get folks to document and really show voluntary practices on the ground… sustainable! Fed pool of funds will keep getting smaller, so getting voluntary buy-in on private lands. • As Ben described, checking in with Farm Bill, related landowner recruitment, GETTING PRODUCERS TO MAKE SMALL, LOW- or NO-COST changes • also getting in touch with IA DOT to figure out what’s their demand for native seeds, etc. • fact sheet for fence rows, field corners, different types of enterprises, etc etc. • one of the challenges in pastures could be herbicides (e.g. thistles)

Information Management The purpose of information management is to collect and disseminate data which will allow accomplishments of the Iowa Monarch Consortium to be shared locally and incorporated at larger scales (ex: regional/national plans). This section needs to articulate the specific types of data that will be needed to measure our movements towards accomplishing the goals of the strategy. The major categories in which key data to be collected needs to be identified are: Habitat Actions, Outreach Actions, Administrative Actions and Monarch monitoring results. Consider which data will be used and what kind of reports will be needed, including data analysis and data summary. The scale, format and tools for data collection also need to be identified with special attention being given to how the data will be coordinated and standardized within the state and across larger scales such as regionally and nationally. Finally this section should address and describe the logistics for managing the data collected in all categories.

192 The expected needed skills needed to write this section: Database Administrator IT professional, Consortium members representing ISU, state government, federal government, non-governmental conservation group and non-governmental agriculture group. Six months will be needed to full write this section of the plan. Issues identified include: - How will we coordinate information needs and format across state lines at the regional and national level (coordinate with MAFWA)? - Privacy/ Personally Identifiable Information scale of data collection may determine whether this is an issue or not? - Is there a need for a clearing house and where would it be? - Funding for a data clearing house creation/data manager.

1) Generally what will be addressed in the Strategy. - Types of information to Track: - Habitat actions - Outreach Actions - Administrative Actions - Monarch Monitoring Results - Describing the scale, format and tools for collection that could then be coordinated and standardized data across the range of the species (i.e. region, national). How will Iowa’s data roll up seamlessly into larger scale conservation measurements? - Logistics of Information Management: Who collects what, how and where is it stored. - Each type of information may fit neatly in one pot (Monitoring/Survey Results) or may need to be pulled in from multiple sources (Habitat Actions). 2) Identify who will be needed to complete work – what skills are needed to write = core team. How many people? - A Database Administrator type IT professional - ISU Consortium Rep. (administrative accomplishments) - Representative from Federal Gov, State Gov, NGO Conservation, NGO Agriculture

3) Identify any issues that will need further discussion with the full group. - How will we coordinate information needs and format across state lines at the regional and national level? Coordinate with MAFWA?

193 - Privacy? Personally Identifiable Information. Scale of data collection may determine whether this is an issue or not? - Is there a need for a clearing house and where would it be? - Funding for a data clearing house creation/data manager.

4) How long will it take to write? - 6 months

Information, Education and Outreach The first version of the Monarch Conservation Strategy will develop the outreach communications plan, including the identification of tools that will be created (e.g., website and other communication products—see Keystone examples) to explain monarch conservation. The communication plan will identify audiences (which will be tightly connected to BMP section groups), objectives, messages, and potential channels for messaging (e.g. events like Farm Progress Show, Governor’s meeting). The strategy will also identify communication goals and metrics (Logic Model) and will include decisions about how often communications will be measured. This chapter will identify the main talking points that must be available to all audiences, including answers to the most common questions while making sure the message is consistent, a s well as stakeholder talking points/training. This section should also identify the technical experts who can field questions about various topics. Potential issues include the challenge of staying in alignment with other organizations and their communication efforts. Another challenge will be finding a way to cooperate with numerous organizations that are also promoting monarch conservation—maybe come up with a consistent process that can be utilized repeatedly. Consistent dedication to the communication effort is a perceived risk or concern and it would be best to have funding. Need communication professionals from each Consortium organization, which should include a dedicated funding source for a communication professional (or request help pro bono [e.g., Strategic America] or with ISU students if needed). Will also need technical support to help identify talking points and provide answers to questions. 5-6 reps: NGO, government, agribusiness, Timing: The communication strategy will be written by the end of the August and will include strategies for a mid-September launch of the first round of communications about the overall Monarch Conservation Strategy

194 ESA Workgroup--Subgroup 6/10/2016

Participants: Katy Reeder, James Cronin, Ed Anderson, Karen Kinkead, Kraig McPeek, Rex Johnson, Joe McGovern, Susan Kozak, Rick Robinson, Curt Goettsch, Scott Moats, John Whitaker, Steve Bradbury

Agenda

• Discuss presentation of monarch conservation work plan proposal, who, which sections • PowerPoint draft feedback • Discuss presentation of proposed Five Actions for Monarchs: who, which sections • Brainstorm primary speaking points

Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium Teleconference 6/17/2016 Agenda • Introductions and Agenda Review • Conservation Strategy Work Plan: Discussion, Approval and Next Steps • Five Conservation Practices and Rollout: Discussion, Approval and Next Steps • Requests for New Consortium Memberships • New Business and Adjourn

PowerPoint presentation: http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/6.17.2016-consortium-meeting-presentation.pdf Strategy work plan under review http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/6.17.2016-monarch-conservation-work-plan-v7.pdf Five Actions text for review http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/6.17.2016-five-actions-ag-for-approval.pdf Meeting Summary • The Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy Work Plan was approved and was given permission to move forward. • Budget concerns were raised regarding the budget necessary to implement our plan. This is an appropriate concern and at this point, we do not have a clear understanding of the required resources to implement the plan or all of the potential sources of funding. Past conservation efforts for species of regional or national concern have received significant

195 federal funding and at some point we believe the resources will be allocated to implement Monarch Butterfly conservation plans. • Organizations were invited to provide names from their organizations to form teams for writing of the strategy chapters of administration; landowner recruitment; data management, and information education, and outreach. • Five actions for monarchs text was approved.

ESA Subgroup 7/29/2016 Participants: Iowa DNR, IDALS, ISU Agenda • Confirm Team Leads • Discuss where we are and how things are progressing • Confirm Strategy Next Steps, Consortium Meeting Date • Confirm Timeline Meeting Notes • Will use PowerPoint similar to the one used in the past but will use them to explain progress instead of what will be developed • Jacque will create a draft and share with speakers; once finished will share with entire ESA group • Will share PowerPoint with Consortium members prior to meeting • Jacque will send a poll to set up another meeting to touch base before Consortium meeting

ESA Subgroup 9/6/2016 Participants: Iowa DNR, IDALS, ISU

Agenda • Discuss Consortium presentation • Review PowerPoint • Meeting Summary • Bold/italics in PowerPoint demonstrates what is Version 1 and what will be added for Version 2 • Send Jacque slides by Friday—she will compile, share with entire ESA group, and get them to CALS for Consortium distribution • Discuss timeline & timeline slide • Identified who will share information on which slides

196

Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium Teleconference 9/14/2016 Agenda 1. Welcome, Introduction of New Members and Partners, Roll Call – Wendy Wintersteen 2. Minor edits to our operating principles - Wintersteen 3. IDALS update on National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Grant– Susan Kozak, IDALS 4. Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF) update on current NFWF grant and objectives new NFWF grant – Joe McGovern, INHF 5. Midwest State Association’s activities on state conservation plans and coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Katy Reeder, Iowa DNR 6. Monarch EQIP funds allocated and efforts to establish approved monarch conservation practices – Grover DePriest and James Cronin, NRCS 7. Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy – Iowa DNR, IDALS, ISU representatives 8. Other items

PowerPoint with Strategy progress: http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/9.14.2016-consortium-meeting-strategy-v1-update.pdf Five Actions for Monarchs Handout (mentioned during call) http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/monarch-5-actions.pdf Meeting Notes Minor edits to our operating principles - Wintersteen

Addition of detail to the Consortium operating principals were approved: “As a functioning body, members agree to address issues regarding membership and operations by a simple majority vote of the assembled members at a meeting, during a teleconference or through email responses.”

IDALS update on National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Grant– Susan Kozak, IDALS

• Received NFWF last fall for $227,400 with goal of establishing 3,311 acres of habitat in 4 Division programs. • Primary program is Buffer Initiative incentive on CP42. • We are about 1/3 to ½ of the way there on all program acres and look confident to complete goal by spring of 2017. • Several field days included in grant. Plan to organize them during 2017. A few are internal staff field days to educate each other and 2 will be public field days with Iowa Learning Farms. • Due to looming CRP cap, we are anxiously watching the numbers roll in for obligated acres since we tied the majority of the grant to State incentive money on CP42.

197

Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF) update on current NFWF grant and objectives new NFWF grant – Joe McGovern, INHF The original NFWF grant was provided for providing habitat for the I-35 corridor (31 counties). The new NFWF grant is also for providing habitat in the same counties, and INHF plans to focus on 16 counties along the Mississippi River? Cedar River Valley? This restoration will include about 400 acres of habitat.

Midwest State Association’s activities on state conservation plans and coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Katy Reeder, Iowa DNR (for Kelley Myers) Regional Coordination The Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (MAFWA) is a representative group of 13 Fish and Wildlife Agencies across the Midwest. On the Monarch conservation effort, MAFWA is taking a leading role in coordination and is working with states beyond the Midwest. MAFWA has received two National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grants. • The first grant, from 2015, is for the development of state planning materials and a coordination meeting of the central states to be held in Texas next January. At this meeting, representatives from states in the Monarch’s central flyway will collaborate with each other as well as engage with relevant federal agencies (e.g., the Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept of Agriculture, US Geological Survey) and partners (Pheasants Forever and National Wildlife Federation). They will also engage representatives of the Keystone Collaborative and the Monarch Joint Venture to share information with their groups.

• The second grant, awarded in 2016, is for the development of mid-continental monarch conservation strategy (a roll up of state monarch conservation plans). Iowa's plan will be incorporated into this mid-continental strategy. MAFWA will be hiring a technical coordinator to develop the plan, and plan to announce the position shortly and hire in December. This 18-month position will be housed in a state fish and wildlife office within the MAFWA region or in Washington, DC. When MAFWA shares this position announcement, please help by sharing this announcement in your networks so that we attract the best candidate.

The goal is for this mid-Continental plan to be completed during the early months of 2018. The coordinator would continue to be available to conduct outreach on the mid-continental strategy, and to incorporate any additional modifications that may be required up and until it is considered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s

198 Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts when Making Listing Decisions (PECE). National Coordination Kelley Myers is currently at a national meeting of Fish and Wildlife Agency directors, working with all 49 other state Fish & Wildlife agencies to ensure that their monarch conservation plans are as comprehensive as possible, and meet as many of the challenges possible for better PECE review. There are discussions about how to bring more financial resources for implementation. All states are engaging on this issue in the hopes of preventing the need to list this species.

The timing of the listing process for the monarch has become more clear. The listing decision must be finalized by June 2019. PECE Analysis is scheduled to occur early in the summer of 2018. PECE is intended to provide a framework for evaluating, within a listing determination, conservation efforts that are still in the planning stage (not yet implemented) or have not yet demonstrated whether they are effective. This means that in addition to the Species Status Assessment (SSA; Kraig McPeek emailed call participants a fact sheet about the monarch butterfly SSA), which evaluates the ecological needs and threats to a species, the listing determination process also includes consideration of conservation efforts. Kraig McPeek chimed in to relate to participants that, as he presented during the January 2016 meeting, PECE analysis evaluates formalized conservation efforts to determine the certainty that they will be implemented and the certainty that they will be effective in contributing to the elimination or adequate reduction of one or more threats to the species. Katy pointed out that Iowa’s Monarch Conservation Strategy as well as the mid- Continental strategy can be considered through PECE analysis, so it’s helpful to have spring 2018 as a target for completion of these strategies. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has been engaging with states to ensure that a state perspective is considered throughout their analysis. Kelley Myers has been invited by the USFWS top sit on their Monarch Advisory Committee on behalf of MAFWA. Dr. Karen Kinkead sits on the Science Team which examines emerging science and research needs, as well as the SSA team. Monarch EQIP funds allocated and efforts to establish approved monarch conservation practices – Grover DePriest and James Cronin, NRCS NRCS is very busy, working in the 10, core-states region. EQIP • 1.8 million was requested under EQIP • 93% of this is obligated

199 • Iowa requested a modest amount of $150,000 ($135,000 is obligated so far) • NRCS State offices may requests additional funding in FY17. • In addition to Monarch Project funds, NRCS State offices have wildlife subaccounts associated with their EQIP programs, whereby eligible landowner may also support monarch conservation. • NRCS wetland easement programs (WRP and WRE) as well as the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) are also expected to receive targeted funding in FY17.

The NRCS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Monarch Butterfly Partnership convened in early 2016 for the purpose of developing an agreement that would protect and conserve the species, and ensure regulatory certainty (i.e., ESA predictability) for private landowners. ESA predictability is the hallmark of NRCS’ Working Lands for Wildlife initiative, which has successfully pre-empted Federal listing of the sage grouse, New England cottontail and other imperiled species. • The partnership identified 30 NRCS conservation practices useful for monarch conservation. • These practices would be conditioned to ensure reliable protection and conservation benefits to the species • Under an approved conservation plan, landowners would receive a 30-year promise that good deeds would not jeopardize their operation; thus, providing valuable regulatory certainty for agricultural operations. • A final agreement is expected in November 2016

FSA Update from John Whittaker (FSA) • Over the last 15 months, an additional 136,200 acres of habitat have been installed under pollinator contract; most but not all have milkweed included in the mix • This brings the total installed acres to 150,000 acres over 7 years (most installed in the last 15 months) • Minimum of 3 species were included for pollinator nectar sources for late season migration

Chip Taylor (Monarch Watch) Monarch Watch has two active monarch conservation programs. • Monarch Waystation Program for encouraging habitat creation for monarchs to produce successive generations and sustain their migration. • Bring Back Monarchs is similar to the Waystation Program but on a larger scale with a focus on habitat restoration. Milkweed plugs are being provided, and donations allow most to be free for the cost of shipping. These plugs are grown from seed and are distributed back to the same are the seed was collected, keeping the plants in their native regions o 200,000 plugs were provided this year with 40,000 of them going to Iowa

200 Tallgrass Prairie Center (Laura Jackson) • The Center has 2 years of data on seed mixes comparing a pollinator mix and a custom designed (cheaper) mix o The custom mix shows promise and is much cheaper to purchase, but there are problems with weeds and poor establishment to work out

Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy – Iowa DNR, IDALS, ISU representatives Excellent progress has been made on version 1 of the Monarch Conservation Strategy. The provided PowerPoint provides an overview. Note that items in bold are being developed for version 1, and items in italics will still be in progress or updated in version 2. Leads have been determined for each section of the strategy, and are noted in parentheses. Text that is created by these leads will be reviewed by the entire ESA group (all interested organizations). Please email [email protected] if you would like someone from your organization to join the effort. Some components are too complicated for one organization to draft, and several cross-section committees are helping to construct these chapters. It was noted that we use the term “breeding habitat” but that this limits meaning—will go forward with “life cycle habitat.” An updated timeline for completion of version 1 has the strategy being sent to the Consortium for review late in November for review. Perhaps comments can even be taken and incorporated before the December meeting.

ESA Subgroup 11/19/2016 Agenda • Review the strategy completion timeline • Review elements that have not been changed since work plan was developed and strategize • Review elements that need a little revision • Review elements that are basically complete to ensure all are satisfied • Confirm timeline and next steps

ESA Subgroup 12/16/2016

Agenda

1) Review Strategy edits (which ones are ok, which ones need more work, which ones need re- work) and discuss how and who to address Rick’s suggestions;

201 2) Set a date for last revisions from IDALS/Iowa DNR 3) Agree on a goal date for distribution to Consortium members.

Consortium Meeting and Research Updates 2/1/2017 Iowa Farm Bureau Federation Boardroom

Participants: USFWS, Blank Park Zoo, Pioneer, Monsanto, Iowa State University, Monarch Watch, Iowa Soybean Association, USDA FSA, The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Iowa Pork Producers Association, Iowa DNR, IDALS, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Syngenta, USDA NRCS, Monarch Joint Venture, Alliant Energy, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center, Iowa Turkey Federation

Morning Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Review Agenda • Partner Update: Environmental Defense Fund • State Agencies Mid-America Monarch Conservation Plan meeting • NRCS – USFWS Partnership • Finalize Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy – Version 1 • Next Steps

Afternoon Agenda: Research/Outreach Updates • Welcome • Monarch Butterfly Tagging Results • ISU Monarch Research Team o Monarch Habitat Establishment, Seth Appelgate, M.S. o Monarch Movement and Egg-laying Model, Tyler Grant, Ph.D. o Monarch Survival and Milkweed Use, Tori Pocius, graduate student o Milkweed Patch Qualities that Influence Monarch Butterfly Oviposition in Iowa Prairies and Roadsides, Teresa Blader, graduate student o Adapting Radio Telemetry Techniques to Track Monarch Butterflies, Kelsey Fisher, graduate student o Common Milkweed: Low-cost establishment and utilization of common milkweed in crop fields, Sydney Lizotte-Hall, graduate student o Milkweed Placement Studies: Insecticide toxicity to monarch larvae, Niranjana Krishnan, graduate student

202 • Consortium Members/Partners o Collaborating within IDALS to Establish Monarch Habitat, Susan Kozak, IDALS o Iowa DNR Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring, Kevin Murphy, Iowa State University o Monarch Habitat Exchange, David Wolfe, Env. Defense Fund

Morning meeting minutes David Wolfe, Environmental Defense Fund • New Consortium partner • Nonprofit that focuses on coordinating collaborative efforts with stakeholders to address conservation challenges within four categories: oceans, climate, health, and ecosystems • The Habitat Exchange program is a marketplace that brings together generators of conservation with investors. It has been done already with the sage grouse and CA monarchs, and EDF is interested in opportunities in the Midwest Karen Kinkead, Iowa DNR • State Fish and Game are working two NFWF grants o National Wildlife Federation to bring agencies together to discuss monarch conservation o Regional coordinator to create a regional plan • MAFWA (Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) mid-January meeting in Texas— o Regional monarch conservation plan: goal is to generate cohesion for efforts across the states o Agreed to components of regional strategy--will have components that will be needed for Fish and Wildlife Service to meet PECE policy needs • Other updates: o University of Minnesota . Habitat Optimization Tool allows analysis of potential habitat sources-- active farmland, ROWs, CRP—each kind is assigned a value for how much milkweed grows there. By changing land-use types, we can estimate potential for increasing milkweed acres in Iowa o Monarch Science Conservation Partnership (Iowa is involved) . USGS is looking at socioeconomic benefits of meeting water quality needs and monarch conservation at the same time . National Monitoring Strategy • Working to identify locations to monitor. Fits well with citizen science monitoring efforts that are already active • Field tested protocols in 2016. They are not quite ready, but will need volunteers in 2017 to try out the protocols o PECE analysis will begin in June of 2018—we need our Iowa strategy and regional strategy to be ready for USFWS to use in the species assessment

203 . Anyone with contacts in other states doing monarch conservation—we need to connect efforts Kraig McPeek, USFWS • The efforts to create the Iowa Monarch Conservation Plan will help USFWS satisfy the two requirements of the PECE (Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts) policy: o Prove conservation efforts will happen (predictability) o Prove conservation efforts will be successful • Conference report o NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife o How can we help encourage people to help monarchs? . Provide assurances that they won’t be penalized later • NRCS conservation plan provide protections/assurances o Conference report is not the same as a conference opinion o The Monarch Conference report is available here (scroll to the bottom): https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/plantsanimals/pollin ate/?cid=nrcseprd402207 o To satisfy Section 7 of Endangered Species Act, there has be a nexus through NRCS conservation planning—landowners must have a monarch conservation plan consistent with specifications in the Conference report —this allows the predictability to participating producers . FSA was NOT part of the conference report, so only NRCS programs are eligible (e.g. still no CRP); USFWS-FSA discussions are starting to prepare a conference report that could cover monarch-specific CRP practices. • The preparation and approval of Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances by USFWS is the process whereby private landowners not eligible for Section 7 Conference Report Farm Bill programs (or for landowners who are eligible for these Farm Bill programs but do use the programs) can have regulatory assurances Conservation Strategy Discussion • Overview of Strategy by Susan Kozak (IDALS) • Suggestions received: o Introduction . Update it with recent PCA policy published last week o Plan should recognize need to ramp up pollinator seed supply gradually o Administration . Logic Model: • A number of orgs that provide technical assistance for providing habitat. ROW management output language could be a bit broader. • Metrics needed: number of acres • Make sure to capture all efforts (easy to miss if not enrolled in federal plan)

204 o Data Management . Must track habitat quality/whether it remains after establishment o Landowner Recruitment . What about landowners and operators. Is that different from landowner? . Consider where conflicts between conservation programs may impede adoption o Research . Use it to help set priorities for acres that should be restored first . Monarch Joint Venture to be added o Accomplishments . Add summary of regional activities – draw upon recent Texas meeting (Kinkead) . Add detail about Monarch Joint Venture coordination with conservation will be added . Army corps of engineers sites will be added . What is missing? Send a paragraph to Jacque

o Information, Education and Outreach . Create a 1-page summary document of the Strategy to make it easy to share . Make handouts sector-specific (federal highway, urban, etc) . Communication team must be prepared to field palmer concerns, educate how to avoid . AAI ag advisors could help provide info • Timeline

o Communications rollout beginning in March so Communications Committee creation must begin now

o Convene Technical Committee Feb-March o March: convene Monitoring Committee; include discussions on use of landowner ‘apps’ that could assist with monitoring

o April: Convene Landowner Recruitment and Data Committees o May: a workgroup will evaluate USFWS habitat goals: A subgroup should meet again in May/June to go over possible habitat goals once the federal goals are available

o Summer: Convene Research Committee Following establishment of national and regional habitat goals by the USFWS, options for meeting Iowa-based habitat goals will be developed for Version 2 of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy.

205

Afternoon PowerPoint presentations: • Monarch Butterfly Tagging Results Note that the data on these slides represent preliminary analyses of a much larger data set. A more comprehensive analysis should be available by 2018. http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-chip-taylor-tagging-analysis-iowa.pdf

• ISU Monarch Research Team o Monarch Habitat Establishment, Seth Appelgate, M.S. http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-isu-appelgate-research-updates.pdf o Monarch Movement and Egg-laying Model, Tyler Grant, Ph.D. http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-isu-grant-research-updates.pdf o Monarch Survival and Milkweed Use, Tori Pocius, graduate student o Milkweed Patch Qualities that Influence Monarch Butterfly Oviposition in Iowa Prairies and Roadsides, Teresa Blader, graduate student http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-blader-2017-research-update.pdf o Adapting Radio Telemetry Techniques to Track Monarch Butterflies, Kelsey Fisher, graduate student http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-isu-fisher-research-update.pdf o Common Milkweed: Low-cost establishment and utilization of common milkweed in crop fields, Sydney Lizotte-Hall, graduate student http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-isu-lizotte-hall-research_update.pdf o Milkweed Placement Studies: Insecticide toxicity to monarch larvae, Niranjana Krishnan, graduate student http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-isu-krishnan-research-update.pdf • Consortium Members/Partners o Collaborating within IDALS to Establish Monarch Habitat, Susan Kozak, IDALS http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-idals-update-on-nfwf-grant- acres.pdf

o Iowa DNR Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring, Kevin Murphy, Iowa State http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-msim-research-update.pdf

o Monarch Habitat Exchange, David Wolfe, Env. Defense Fund http://monarch.ent.iastate.edu/files/file/2.1.2017-wolfe-edf-intro-and-habitat- exchange.pdf

206

Communications Workgroup 2/23/2017 Participants: Iowa State University, Iowa DNR, Soil and Water Conservation Society, Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Soybean Association, IDALS, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, ITC Midwest, Monarch Joint Venture, Central College Agenda • Review Strategy Communication release timeline • Discuss communication material options and current progress • Finalize date for communication release Meeting Summary The Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy communications will go live on Monday, February 27. We are targeting 10:00 to 11:00 am release by ISU CALS. We would then hold the press phone call at 12:30 pm with IDALS, Iowa DNR and ISU representatives available to answer questions. On Tuesday, the Iowa DNR newsletter would include an article about the strategy and would be released at 11:30 am. You are all welcome to share information about the strategy after 11:00 am on Monday. Other materials are also being drafted and can be viewed in CyBox; they are not yet final. You are welcome to share them after 11:00 am on Monday. More detail on these drafts is below. Consortium Website: www.iowamonarchs.info Twitter: https://twitter.com/iowamonarchs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/iowamonarchs Other Highlights • The strategy is the product of over two years of effort by the leadership of your organizations • It has been a group effort to create a strategy for Iowa, and credit can go to the Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium. • The US Fish and Wildlife Service will soon release new estimates for how much monarch habitat area is going to be needed for monarch conservation to succeed. • Work on the press release will continue to make it more concise; the complete list of Consortium members and partners will be added to the bottom of the release (in the contacts section); an updated release version will be distributed to this group when complete • The summary document will be a useful communication piece—simple, straightforward with “five ways to help monarchs” on the back

207 Communications Workgroup 8/29/2017 Participants: Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, Pheasants Forever, Women Food and Ag Network, Iowa Corn Growers Association, The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Blank Park Zoo, Iowa Cattlemen's Association, Iowa State University) Monarch Joint Venture, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Trees Forever and Bur Oak Land Trust Meeting Summary: Feedback to improve this video (https://www.facebook.com/iowastateuniversityextension/videos/10155776618512268/) “But WHY should people care about monarch conservation?” Shorten and clarify text (e.g. odd areas, “to avoid drift”, habitat 2x, etc.) Add website or social at the end

Communication Channels and types of Content Requests for profiles/case studies of landowners who are installing monarch habitat Video is an essential communication medium Future ideas Proposed awareness campaign (e.g. monarch habitat day/week) Badge or button for Facebook profile Video, newsletters, social and print are all in play Action items: • What steps are needed to display a connection to the Consortium on your organization’s homepage (logo with a link to www.iowamonarchs.info)? • Identifying “early adopter” landowners who are actively farming (or semi-retired) and planting monarch/pollinator habitat?

208 Landowner Recruitment Workgroup 9/12/2017

Participants: IDALS, ISU, USFWS, Iowa Turkey Federation, Iowa DNR, Women, Food and Agriculture Network, Pheasants Forever, USDA FSA, USDA NRCS, Iowa Soybean Association, IFBF, Iowa DOT, University of Iowa Tallgrass Prairie Center Notes from Meeting • We have agreed that implementation of monarch conservation practices is an important issue; it’s time to act and encourage early adopters to plant habitat • We need a place to direct people for monarch content; each organization needs to establish a site on their homepage that can link to the Consortium site, iowamonarchs.net for content – this action item will be addressed by the Communications and Outreach Committee. • For spokespeople, we want diversity, including small, medium, and large plantings; CP42, gardens, rights of ways, industrial sites; easy to establish sites (e.g., soybean field going into conservation) and some difficult sites (e.g., brome grass dominated site) • Messages to convey with those who already have or are committed to establishing habitat in 2018 o Why they decided to establish habitat o How/where they established habitat on their land o What did they learn about site prep and maintenance; how much effort? • Overarching messages to convey o Now is the time for action/urgency! o Small plots (0.5 to 5 acres do help o Wild landscapes are good o Need to set realistic expectations for what plantings look like on Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 …and the associated level of effort. . Growing corn and soybeans requires management throughout a growing season and across the years to achieve high productivity; establishing high quality habitat also requires management within and across growing seasons.

• People who were Farm Bill eligible pick CRP first then EQIP. Mid contract management does allow milkweed to be added to established CRP, assuming its compatible with the existing practice.

Action items • Identify 5-10 members of your organization, who have planted monarch habitat or who are willing to plant habitat in 2018. Be sure a few of these people are also willing to serve as a spokesperson (November deadline to share ‘a tally’ at the Nov. 28th Consortium meeting).

209 • What questions do you expect as you invite people to plant monarch habitat or serve as a spokesperson (examples below*)? Send questions to Jacque, and we will make sure you are prepared to respond. (Deadline, end of the day Thursday, Sept. 21st) • Watch for a doodle poll early next week *Example questions we will help you answer so you are prepared to talk with your members about these topics: • Who can help me learn to prepare and maintain my site? • How do I decide what to plant? • Where do I buy seed? • Are there programs to help with the cost?

Iowa Monarch Habitat Goals Technical Committee 10/9/2017 Participants: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa DNR, USFWS, Pheasants Forever, University of Northern Iowa Tallgrass Prairie Center, Pioneer, Iowa State, IDALS, Iowa DOT, IFBF Iowa Soybean Association Agenda • Begin process of establishing Iowa habitat goals that will be included in Version 2 of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy

Meeting Summary Notes

o Version 1 of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy includes basic components to work toward a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) but does not include habitat goals as federal/regional goals were not yet available o National goal is to add 1.3-1.8 billion stems of milkweed o Thogmartin et al. 2017a demonstrate need for all sectors to be involved to reach stem goal (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7637) o Iowa is responsible for 8%-13% of the milkweed stems over 20 year period (see attached PowerPoint) o Our goal is to come up with a couple options for Iowa’s role in meeting the national goals using acres as the unit; the option to be used in the Strategy will be selected during the November 28 Consortium meeting o Define assumptions related to proposed goals o Current focus includes these landcovers: ag (farm bill programs, marginal land, field boarders, farmsteads, livestock operations), road rights of ways, suburban/urban, and public lands

210 o Iowa is the heart of the monarch breeding range—we must succeed for monarch conservation to succeed o We already have a solid start with the Consortium and the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy; others are looking to Iowa as a leader in the effort o Timeline: o November 1: Workgroups check in o November 7: Workgroup objectives are shared across all groups o November 14: Workgroup agrees on options o November 17: Submit options to Consortium members o November 28: Consortium option selection o February 2018: Habitat goals finalized o March 2018: Iowa goals shared with MAWFA o June 2018: Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy Version 2 made public o The next step is for small groups (draft teams below) to meet related to sector. If you were not able to make the meeting, please let me know if you would like to help define Iowa habitat goals for ag, rights of ways, suburban/urban, or public lands. o For assistance, please contact me. I can help answer questions, create doodle polls, schedule meetings, identify meeting locations

Iowa Monarch Habitat Goals Habitat Goals (Technical Committee, Agriculture subgroup) 10/24/2017 Participants: Monsanto, USDA ARS, Iowa Pork Producers, IDALS Pheasants Forever, Pioneer, Iowa State University, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Corn Growers Association, USDA NRCS, Iowa Soybean Association Agenda

o discuss monarch habitat goals for ag in Iowa Meeting Summary

o Farmsteads are part of urban/suburban but this group will help estimate the number o The goal is not to take farmland out of production—looking for odd areas (around confinement facilities, bioreactors, grassed waterways, pasture, CRP or other unused areas) o CRP o Mid contract management for CRP provides opportunity for interseeding (disturbance is essential for MCM; interseeding optional) o Renewal time for CRP is also an opportunity to establish a prairie with milkweed o Adding a seed plot to existing CRP is another option that could be done anytime o Need Congress to increase CRP budget o Need total acres to stay constant

211 o Livestock operations o Pork, cattle, turkey operations provide opportunity for adding habitat around buildings and livestock yards o Marginal lands o Marginal land is difficult to define between Iowa and national definitions o Keep estimate low because some “marginal” areas may be in the middle of fields where we would not plant habitat o Use AgSolver… opportunity for landowners to use EQIP program o This is a really small number of acres in Iowa; not going to dwell on setting a specific goal o Look into options to combine water quality practices with habitat efforts

Iowa Monarch Habitat Goals Habitat Goals (Technical Committee, Urban subgroup) 10/27/2017 Participants: Iowa DNR, IDALS, USFWS, Blank Park Zoo, Iowa State University, Polk County Conservation, City of Des Moines Parks and Rec, NRCS Conservation District, Tallgrass Prairie LLC

Agenda

• Introductions • Background overview; how did we get here? • Review goal of meeting: to outline Habitat goals in acres and assumptions that would allow goals to be achieved • Discussion of types of urban habitat that could be useful o School o yards o Golf courses o Parks—public lands? • Create goal for each type • Review of action items that come from discussion

Meeting Notes • Sectors included in Urban efforts: corporate, commercial, industrial, rights of ways/utility, golf courses, parks and rec, city empty lots, churches/schools/YMCA, universities, stormwater management areas, private yards (Mayor’s monarch challenge;

212 National Wildlife Federation, People for Pollinators, Plant.Grow.Fly,), bounty board areas • Potential Challenges/assumptions o Where to get milkweed, seed, plants o Need support and outreach, especially for corporate landscaping; quick references available; also maintenance information o Burning may be an issue within cities (mow instead) o City Parks and Rec remain interested in pollinator cause and native plantings o Need staff to implement/maintain (parks, conservation boards) • Potential partners o Plant.Grow.Fly o National Wildlife Federation o Iowa Storm Water Education Partnership o Tallgrass Field Museum in Chicago o ISU, Turfgrass • Meeting Summary o Des Moines should apply for assistance with habitat mapping with Field Museum of Chicago planning and zoning tool o 13 cities in Iowa over 50,000 o 50 in mid range around 5,000 o Communities under 5,000 no access to GIS mapping o Des Moines has good GIS maps for property ownership, but not for land cover o Need something in writing to ensure consistency of habitat o Stem density will be low in some areas but potential for higher in parks, etc o Consider promotion of stem goals as stems per person; connect goal with anniversary or special event

Iowa Monarch Habitat Goals Habitat Goals (Technical Committee, Public Lands subgroup) 10/27/2017 Participants: Iowa DNR, USFWS, Iowa State University, Boone County Conservation, Polk County Conservation

Agenda

• Introductions • Background overview; how did we get here? • Review goal of meeting: to outline Habitat goals in acres and assumptions that would allow goals to be achieved

213 • Discussion of types of public lands habitat that could be useful • Create goal for each type • Review of action items that come from discussion

Meeting Summary

o Resources are limited: funds, staff o Land acquisition is an important limiting factor for habitat establishment o To reach goal, must work toward both new habitat establishment (reconstruction) and restoration (remove small trees from land that is already public + plant habitat) o Need for groups to help provide information and to help plant habitat o Action items o Send survey to County Conservation Boards to determine amount of habitat currently available and how much they anticipate adding o Send survey to DNR employees to determine amount of habitat currently available and how much they anticipate adding o Contact other Iowa groups: Effigy Mounds, Camp Dodge, Mesquaki, Whiterock Conservancy o More landcover analysis is needed to determine areas available for restoration and reconstruction

Iowa Monarch Habitat Goals Habitat Goals (Technical Committee) 11/14/2017 Participants: Iowa DNR, Iowa Corn Growers Association, The Nature Conservancy, IDALS, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Monsanto, USDA ARS, Iowa State University, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center, Iowa DOT, Blank Park Zoo, USDA NRCS, USFWS Agenda

o Introductions o Goal Updates from Each Sector o Urban/suburban o Public land o Agriculture o Rights of ways o Acres to stems conversion o Landowner Recruitment update/reminder Meeting Summary Urban/Suburban lands

214 o Using the number of cities in Iowa and low, medium, and high estimates of how much space can be planted with milkweed, estimate options were presented o Area is converted to stems using conversion factor from Thogmartin et al. 2017a o Questions: o Are there diminishing returns in cities - what happens when you run out of space? Factor in turnover? o What is a reasonable estimate of milkweed per acres density? Public Lands

o More landcover analysis is needed to determine areas available for restoration and reconstruction o Stem density (per acre) estimates will come from Thogmartin et al. 2017a o Three options for estimating public areas to be used for monarch habitat: o Choose a percentage of existing public lands and estimate a percentage that will be converted o Conduct a survey of organizations helping to manage public lands to compile their anticipated monarch habitat planting efforts o Consider the amount of seed that is grown and used for public land seeding projects and use this as a limiting factor for estimates o Questions: o Which approach? . Is recent planting progress a good indicator of future effort? o Is 200 stems per acre a reasonable milkweed stem estimate for public land? Ag Lands

o Options for planting habitat: o CRP o Water quality initiative practices o Estimated small farmstead acreages (will be moved to urban/suburban category) o CSP/WRP/EQIP program lands o Marginal lands? o Pasture o Livestock facilities o Assumptions o Assumption we are going to miss some potential area for milkweed habitat between fields o NRCS, FSA revise mid contract management to provide a monarch habitat option o Most acres of CP-42 did not have milkweed seeded to them o Technical support needed, seed mix recommendation o Funding needed for seed, education, outreach o Number of stems per acre o CRP acres turn over, but we assume the acres are re-enrolled and stay constant

215 Rights of Ways County Roadsides

o Current habitat available o 762,000 county roads in Iowa o 57% to 71% have milkweed o Use Kasten et al. stems per acre conversion o Future habitat to plant o 1,000 acres of seed are produced each year o Consider using Kasten et al. and Thogmartin et al. 2017a stems per acre conversion Acres to Stem Conversions

o Many factors to consider: seeding rates, site conditions, milkweed species, weather, germination, survival o If seeding rate is double/tripled, does it result in more stems? Landowner Recruitment

o A map of champion landownders is being prepared; send connections

Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium 11/28/2017 Meeting held at Iowa Farm Bureau Federation

Participants: Alliant Energy, BASF Corporation, Bayer, Blank Park Zoo, Environmental Defense Fund, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa DNR, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Iowa State University, Iowa Wildlife Federation, ITC Holdings Corp, Monarch Watch, Monsanto, Iowa Nature Conservancy, Pheasants Forever, Pioneer, Syngenta, Trees Forever, USDA - Farm Service Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA NRCS, University of Northern Iowa Tallgrass Prairie Center, Whiterock Conservancy

Agenda Welcome and Introductions Review Agenda Update on National and Regional Conservation Planning and Timelines • US Fish and Wildlife Service • USDA Farm Service Agency • NRCS – USFWS Partnership

216 • Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy – Version 2 Iowa Monarch Habitat Goals Discussion Iowa Landowner Recruitment Progress Summary Wrap up and Next Steps

National and Regional Conservation Planning and Timelines USFWS Kraig McPeek

o Conservation efforts database to track conservation plans and efforts is being developed and tested now. It will be available for data entry by June of 2018 and will help inform the listing decision o Spring 2018 USFWS begins collecting information to support Species Assessment report o Late 2018: peer review/partner review of draft Species Status Assessment report o June 30, 2019 USFWS issues proposed response to listing petition

USDA FSA (CRP update) Iowa CRP as of the end of October 2017. Iowa has the nation’s largest CRP program with 109,068 contracts, with the third largest number of acres under contract at 1,786,530. Of the more than 109,000 contracts, 100,479 contracts are under 50 acres in size. In fact, more than 67,000 contracts are under 10 acres in size. Iowa’s average size of a CRP contract is 16.38 acres.

So what has happened in the last year. Since we met a year ago, Iowa landowners have enrolled 223,686 acres in to CRP on 9875 contracts. On September 30, 2017, Iowa had 214,997 acres expired. Meaning over the last year Iowa saw a net increase of 8689 acres of CRP. Currently FSA is not taking application for the CRP program. FSA is finishing up CRP Sign-up 50 (Program Year 2017) with a deadline of December 29, 2017. At some point after December we expect the USDA to look at where we are at nationally with respect to the 24 million-acre CRP Cap. At that time, a decision could be made as to how and which CRP programs might be made available.

217 Enrolled in 2017: all-include high diverse native mix seeding plans (to be seeded this fall or next spring): CP42 )Pollinator Habitat) added 46,061 acres CP25 (Restoration of Rare and Declining Habitat) added 267 acres (part of Highly Erodible Land Initiative) CP38 State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) added 108,243 acres

USFWS, NRCS partnership James Cronin NRCS conservation practices support conservation and make sure ESA predictability and policy for the evaluation of conservation efforts (PECE) policy conditions are met while providing landowner assurances that their conservation plan will remain valid even if the species is listed Almost 3 years of data • EQIP (working lands, not out of production in general): 174 acres 2016 o Decreased in 2017 o Looking forward, expect an increase in 2018 due to new monarch regional conservation partnership program (RCPP). National Fish and Wildlife Foundation contacted with Pheasants Forever to deliver technical assistance; $350,000 available and if all is spent, it would result in about 438 acres under EQIP. This funding offsets seeding itself, but it does not provide annual payments (like CRP) • Easements (30 year to longer) o 297 acres done o 1,600 acres expected • CSP—just coming online (5 year contract; still working lands) There is payment (incentives) o 22 acres expected 2018 • Really looking at nooks and crannies that are not useful for production but that could help monarchs • All 3 programs are growing and we anticipate further growth There is not a maximum acre cap in Iowa, but there are budgetary limitations that cannot be exceeded; could request for increase to budgetary cap if there is demand—need more promotion of options to increase demand MAWFA update Karen Kinkead • Version 1 of the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy includes basic components to work toward a programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances but does not include habitat goals as federal/regional goals were not yet available • National goal is to add 1.3-1.8 billion stems of milkweed

218 • Regional distribution of goal was created by MAFWA; more detail is available at www.mafwa.org • Iowa is responsible for 8%-12% of the milkweed stems over a 20 year period; translates to 140 to 206 million stems • 160 million stems, if approved by Consortium, may be a good mid-range goal • Iowa is the heart of the monarch breeding range—we must succeed for monarch conservation to succeed • Thogmartin et al. 2017a demonstrate need for all sectors to be involved to reach stem goal (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7637) • Current Iowa focus includes these landcovers: ag (farm bill programs, marginal land, field boarders, farmsteads, livestock operations), road rights of ways, suburban/urban, and public lands • Timeline for finalizing goals for MAFWA: o Draft ready by Jan 30, 2018 for partner review o Public review will follow beginning March 1: partners still can comment o Final vote by Fish and Game Agency Directors, May of 2018

Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy – Version 2 • 160 million new milkweed stems in the next 20 years • The earlier start in establishing new habitat, the less work there is to do in the future as milkweeds clone • Assumptions behind stem goals: o Organizations, businesses, and landowners will have technical information and support e.g., . BMPs and support for site preparation, planting and maintenance o Sufficient public/private funding o Adequate seed/plug availability o New (and existing) habitat will be maintained o Published papers (e.g., Thogmartin et al. 2017a; Kasten et al. 2017) o Best professional judgement and on-going research used to support o Assumptions of biologically plausible stems/acre in different land cover classes o Milkweed seeds per acre in seed mixes o Seed to stem conversion rates o Surveys in Iowa planned for 2018 will help assess uncertainties in some of these assumptions – these uncertainties not unique to Iowa • Current Draft Goal Estimates o Estimates from these sectors: Iowa can add between 87.5 to 152 million stems through new planting o Urban/Suburban . 39,780 to 194,140 acres . 1.13 to 5.5 million stems o Rights of Ways . 28,000 to 49,000 acres . 7.4 to 9.7 million stems

219 o Public Lands . 76,654 to 116,248 acres . 15 to 33 million stems o Agricultural Lands (augmented CRP) . 171,000 to 343,000 acres . 64 to 104 million stems • Additional stems will be added after on-going analyses for land cover/land uses: • Urban/Suburban (e.g., highly developed land) • ROWs (e.g., utilities) • Ag (e.g., pasture, livestock facilities, corn/soybean marginal land) • Public Land stems will increase with additional surveys Landowner Recruitment • Landowner Recruitment • What is needed to develop recruitment efforts? . Encourage habitat establishment on their farm within the next year . Encourage local leadership/ownership of the habitat initiative . Highlight examples of success • Work to layer conservation with practices that we are already doing • See map of example of how our collaborative efforts are helping identify potential places to add habitat Pathfinders RC and IDALS partnerships • $207,000 matched with $250,000 partner dollars • Over 5,000 acres in 4 diff conservation programs • Target was 3300 acres

Habitat Goals (Technical Committee, Ag subgroup) 12/13/2017 Iowa Corn Growers Participants: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa State University, USDA ARS, USDA NRCS, Pheasants Forever Agenda

o Finalize Monarch Habitat Goals for Ag Sector o Review ISU suggestions and math Meeting Summary Summary Notes from Ag Goals Meeting December 13

o Assuming ag’s contribution to an Iowa goal of 160,000,000 million stems over 20 years is based on % land cover across sectors in Thogmartin et al. 2017a ag would need to contribute 56,000,000 new stems. o This goal is almost within reach - 47,851,280 to 50,555,600 stems

220 o Both low acre range and high acre range reach the stem goal if we use the assumption that stems clone o Low acre range with cloning estimated to produce 78,000,000 to 124,000,000 new stems o High acre range with cloning estimated to produce 82,000,000 to 131,000,000 new stems o Marginal lands will be included in ag estimates, but we don’t want to make the goal too difficult to reach (avoid implying land must come out of production). Went with medium adoption rate of 5% - will use a single assumption; i.e., not use 1% or 10%; see attached Ag math3 document o Ag acre goals will be provided as a range, but certain estimates to create the range will still be point estimates for simplicity o Marginal land, agreed on point estimate for adoption rate of 5% o Seed to stem conversion rate - assuming 1% and 2% seed to stem conversion – use a point estimate of 1.5%? o Propagation rate of new stems – current estimates assuming 5%, 7.5% and 10% - should we run all three assumptions? o Adoption rates for livestock facilities - ok with using a point estimate here? o Seeding rate - instead of running analyses assuming 10,000 milkweed seeds per acre and 16,000 milkweed seeds per acre (ISU mix with common, butterfly and swamp), current estimate uses a single point estimate of 12,000 (common) milkweed seeds per acre Additional Action Items: Touch base with your organizations from other states Need to identify and record research gaps (increase seeding success through stratification, best milkweed seeding rate, seeding rate to stem conversion, best methods for site prep, seeding, etc)

Habitat Goals (Technical Committee) 1/4/2018 IDALS Participants: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa State University, USDA ARS, USDA NRCS, Pheasants Forever, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, ISU, IDALS, Iowa DNR, Alliant Energy, Iowa DOT, USFWS, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center, The Nature Conservancy, Iowa Pork Producers Association

Agenda • Introductions • Review Iowa’s Proposed Monarch Habitat Goals o Urban/Suburban (Steph) o Public Lands (Karen) o Other (Doug) o Rights of Ways (Kristine and Joy)

221 o Agricultural (Steve) • Discussion/Questions

Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium Teleconference 1/19/2018 Participants: IDALS, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Alliant Energy, BASF Corporation, Central College, Environmental Defense Fund, Iowa DNR, Iowa DOT, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa State University, USDA ARS, Monarch Watch, Pheasants Forever, Pioneer, USFWS, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center

Agenda 1:30 – Introductions and Meeting Objective 1:45 – Overview of Habitat Goals and Discussion 2:15 - Next Steps

Meeting Summary *refer to Consortium distributed document for numbers Document summary • Assumptions are given to demonstrate what is needed in order for goals to be met (same as in November) • Acre and stem ranges demonstrates that there are uncertainties in assumptions o Additional categories will be added o In the future, may need to adapt range as more information becomes available, either from missing categories or from results that provide clarity to these assumptions Goals draft feedback: • No feedback received on general categories, public lands, other USFWS and NRCS programs, • Remove 2014 data from “Other” category. Fix number year summary of 23 years • Reword as “roadside rights of ways” table p 1 • Ag: add assumption maintain funding levels for CRP

Next steps • MAFWA moving forward with these goals o Smaller o Goes to state smaller and tech staff o Public comment • Text that is easy for public to follow and understand will be included in strategy Version 2.0

222 • February 2018: Prepare strategy version 2.0 to launch (so this is live when MAFWA shares goals in March) • March 2018: MAFWA releases regional goals for public review; Iowa Strategy version 2.0 with goals publicly available at the same time • Continue to develop strategy version 2.1 with additional sections completed

Landowner Recruitment 4/23/2018 IDALS, Wallace Building Participants: IDALS, Iowa DNR, ISU, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, ITC, Pheasants Forever, USDA ARS, USDA NRCS, USFWS, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center Agenda Discuss communication with landowners, including champion news articles, social media, etc. Meeting Summary • Create articles with photos of champion efforts o Real photos to help with realistic expectations o Take photos before, during and after establishment • Survey Landowner Recruitment members to determine timing and distribution of champion efforts and stories • Farm Bureau monarch outreach in progress • Share monarch resources o Wildlife Contacts map o PF: Programs for Pollinators Guide o Guide for land managers regarding mid contract management opportunities o PF: workshops

Technical Committee Monarch Strategy Session 5/7/2018 Iowa Soybean Association Participants: Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Soybean Association, IDALS, Iowa DNR, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, ISU, The Nature Conservancy, Pheasants Forever, Soil and Water Conservation Society, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center, USDA ARS, USFWS

223 Agenda • Introductions • National Efforts, Progress and Deadlines • Chapter Progress Updates and 2018 Priorities Notes • USFWS has a Monarch Conservation Database that will be available by June for conservation plans and actions • The monarch listing decision will be made in June of 2019 • Goal is to meet PECE requirements with Iowa efforts; the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy helps Iowa do that Strategy Chapters to update: Landowner Recruitment • Survey is coming to better gauge the diversity of habitat sites that have been located • Field days are happening this year; hope to engage landowners Adaptive Management • Essential component in the strategy in order to meet PECE requirements • Two frameworks—one is strategic habitat conservation (most well known) • Agree to continue Consortium meetings at least once a year • Must add evaluation to this section • Reviewed table of population evaluation options to confirm need for each item in Iowa’s strategy Monitoring • Integrate with national efforts for protocols, survey designs as they develop o National effort relies on USGS grid, which is a random draw of different habitat points based on a computer algorithm o Teams can be used to monitor a site as there is a lot of data and several protocols to collect at each one • Monarch Joint Venture monitoring training is in May • Considered options for verifying milkweed stem densities in each sector Information Management • Monarch habitat will be recorded in the national database o Option to include exact site shapefile or to enter location at county level o How to avoid duplication is an important consideration . Possibly have funding agencies enter the acres planted into database

224 Best Management Practices • Rights of ways: Provided BMPs example • Each sector Ag, Urban/Suburban, Public Lands will meet and work to pull together sector recommendations; Next Steps • Craft text for strategy sections discussed • Schedule a consortium teleconference • Expect this is the last strategy update before listing decision • Discuss timeline for drafts, meetings, and new version of public strategy (fall)

Technical Committee, Urban/Suburban subgroup Best Management Practices 5/30/2018 Participants: Blank Park Zoo, Iowa DNR, Iowa State University, USFWS, Reiman Gardens, City of Des Moines Parks and Recreation, Polk County Conservation, Polk Soil & Water Conservation District Agenda • Brainstorm urban best management practices • Consider outreach options and topics needed Meeting Summary • Consider general space options: corporate/commercial, residential, church/schools/government • Main topics needed in BMP: o Species ecology, migration, time spent in Iowa o Identification o Choosing plants . Provide specific lists for common garden areas . Sun/shade . Wet/dry o Pesticides o Information sharing and signage o List of resources . Where to buy o Management and expectations . Management necessary . Native (may look less manicured) o Turf management opportunities

225 . Less mowing = more nectar resources . Less spraying = more nectar resources . Convert to garden . Solution for trouble areas (dry, wet, shady, erosion) o Ditches • Additional Outreach opportunities o Commercial/corporate: provide signage and plant options o Golf courses: increase forbs in unmowed areas

Technical Committee, Agriculture subgroup Best Management Practices 7/3/2018 Participants: Corteva, Iowa State University, USDA NRCS, Pheasants Forever, USDA FSA, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation

Agenda • Introductions • Meeting Goals/Timeline • Best Management Practices o Establishment and Maintenance o Pest Management Meeting Summary • Site selection o Characteristics . Non crop • Buffer • Pasture • Easement/ROW • Brush • marginal . Grass • Cool season • Bluegrass/brome • Mono- native o Site Prep . Augment • Mono-native o Interseeding o Burn, spray, till, hay, graze

226 . Establish • Non-crop o Burn, spray, bale o Crop to convert • Grass o Burn, spray, bale o Crop to convert o Planting . Spring/fall • Dormant, frost, broadcast • Drill, broadcast, dropseed, interseed . Seed Mix • Characteristics: grass/forb ratio, milkweed seed density, local ecotype, avoid contamination, forb selection o Post planting management . Mowing, spot spraying, burn, strip-disk . Ongoing: burn, mow/hay/graze o Pest Management . Mitigation

Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium Teleconference 9/14/2018 Participants: Alliant Energy, Bayer, Bur Oak Land Trust, Central College, Cornell College, Environmental Defense Fund, Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa DNR, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, IDALS, ISU, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Nature Conservancy, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Iowa Wildlife Federation, Pheasants Forever, Corteva Agriscience, Prudenterra, Story County Conservation, Syngenta, USFWS, USDA FSA, USDA NRCS

Agenda

• Review Agenda • New Members • Collect feedback on draft Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy text o Data Management o Monitoring o Landowner Recruitment o Adaptive Management o Best Management Practices sections • Logo Update • Wrap up and Next Steps

227 Meeting Summary • Strategy feedback o Site assessment in landowner recruitment needs detail about voluntary nature of visits related to technical assistance advice and site visits related to funding options through farm bill programs o In Ag BMPs section, it sounds like cropland is recommended for conversion into habitat; revision needed o Public lands should include non governmental conservation organizations • Share strategy workgroup members so that new members have a chance to see who is involved • USFWS Monarch Conservation Database o Individual groups enter own data or have one central coordinator for State of Iowa? . Send feedback via email o Add Iowa strategy to database • Next Steps o Text will be updated and sent around to consortium for review/approval o Goal of posting strategy version 2.1 by mid-October

Data Management 11-1-2018 Participants: Bayer, Corteva Agriscience, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa DNR, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, ISU, USDA FSA, USDA NRCS,

Agenda • Introduction to current databases • Data location. The provided USFWS Monarch Conservation Database or another database that would need to be created? • Data to collect. The USFWS database (MCD) collects habitat data and conservation plan summaries. The Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program from Monarch Joint Venture encourages monarch (adult, caterpillar, egg) data, milkweed stem data and nectar plant diversity data. Is there anything else to track and store? • Data coordinator logistics. What are the needs? Define this potential position. • Upcoming deadline for recording efforts – November 15th.

228 Meeting Summary 1. Current Databases Monarch Conservation Database (MCD) • Exists, built by USFWS • Stores two kinds of data: conservation efforts (mostly habitat-related) linked with conservation plans • Database is easy to navigate; bulk uploads are possible but kinks are being worked out o Must answer PECE questions for plans and different PECE questions for conservation efforts • May want to consider as a group how to answer PECE questions for the Iowa strategy • Access to data: there will be some ability to export data at a high level (to export certain summary statistics at a state level—training on these details has not been completed Monarch Joint Venture Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program (IMMP) • Stores more diverse data: nectar plants, milkweed stems, and monarch eggs, larvae, adults, and cases of disease • Works better for a team to try to collect data on a site since there are many aspects to monitor • Access to data: could we designate someone from the state to access Iowa data

2. Data location • MCD i. This is where USFWS will go to look for habitat data—makes sense to enter it here instead of building another system/entering it two places ii. Privacy? • Data is entered at the county level (shapefile is optional) • This is good for privacy but will need to answer question of how to determine if entries overlap • IMMP i. Good for capturing monarch-related data, but will need more volunteers in Iowa collecting data before there is enough data to be relevant 3. Data to collect: Do the existing systems meet all of Iowa’s data collection needs? • Need place for “social” data i. Measure awareness of problem (Farmer Rural Life Poll—send to group, possibly with another survey) ii. Concern about problem/willingness to participate in solution iii. Outreach efforts • Field days • Questions • Requests for assistance iv. Seed mix sold 4. Data Coordinator Logistics • Coordinator could i. Track data for all organizations ii. Upload it to the database for the organizations iii. Provide support for organizations doing their own uploads

229 iv. Or a combination • INHF has many sites and prefers to upload their own data; Corteva would appreciate support • Coordinator could also support cities or landowners: people who are not under a formal plan • There is a mobile app being developed for this to capture this habitat i. Bayer shared details of what it will capture • Number of milkweed stems • Polygon of area • % of forbs • Translates this to land use classifications used by USFWS ii. In progress by Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology-ISU iii. It will be anonymized to the county level • Assigned a numerical id iv. How to avoid duplication? v. Will this data pull out of the MCD as part of the state summary? vi. What can people do if they do not have a smart phone? • Monarch Watch did send their waystation data directly to USFWS • Will explore options for Plant.Grow.Fly. with Jessie Lowry • Consensus was there is a need for a coordinator, but need to flush out duties and FTE needed 5. November 15, 2019 is the final day to enter data into the MCD for the “snapshot” USFWS will take as they begin their evaluation of the species • Should work to enter habitat data from all land-use sectors identified in Iowa: urban/suburban (some may be included through MonarchWatch), ag lands, public lands, rights of ways • Should try to iron out responses to PECE questions for the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy i. Provide explanation for PECE question responses ii. Answer them yes/no and prepare a roadmap “cheat sheet” for when questions arise as far as how the questions were answered • Look into tracking of rights of way habitat • Ag area habitat is captured by USDA FSA and USDA NRCS farm bill program data i. Data sharing is in progress between these organizations and USFWS; this data will be missing from the MCD and any summary of Iowa efforts will need to add farm bill program acres to give an accurate representation of Iowa’s achievements

Data Management 3/22/2019 Participants: Bayer, Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa, Corteva Agriscience, Iowa Corn Growers Association, IDALS, ISU, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation

230 Agenda • Review position description draft for data manager Meeting Summary Are any changes needed before we make a recommend hiring a Data Manager to the Consortium? • IDALS, Bayer, Corteva Agriscience support Funding/budget will be discussed at the upcoming Consortium meeting. Full or half time for data manager? • There’s a half time coordinator in WI – all monarch conservation roles, not just data • There’s a full time coordinator in Missouri… not sure about duties.

Bayer: Habitatlly Update and Summary of Progress • Collaborated with USFWS for data fields • App captures the baseline data (acres/stems) to go into the MCD • Details are added into a database at Iowa State. ISU will store and upload to MCD. Data is automatically converted to the county level for privacy. • Estimated app release is April, publically available on the app store. Final coding right now. • Developed with Climate Corp, working with Iowa State. • We are donating app to ISU, not Bayer or Climate Corp. • Freely available on apple webstore; ISU would have to do android version.

Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium

April 2, 2019 Attendees: Alliant Energy, Conservation Districts of Iowa, Bayer, Corteva Agriscience, Environmental Defense Fund, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Department of Ag and Land Stewardship, Iowa DNR, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa National Guard, Iowa Nature Conservancy, Iowa Pork Producers Association, Iowa Pheasants Forever, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa State University, Story County Conservation, Trees Forever, UNI Tallgrass Prairie Center, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Farm Service Agency, Whiterock Conservancy

231 Agenda Consortium Member Updates . Blank Park Zoo . Whiterock Conservancy . Environmental Defense Fund . Bayer . Corteva

Update on National and Regional Conservation Planning and Timelines . USDA Farm Service Agency . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service . Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies . US Fish and Wildlife Service

Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy—Overview . Iowa Landowner Recruitment Progress Summary . Communication Summary . Data Management Summary . Budget and Organization

Action Items and Scheduling Next Meeting

Meeting Action Items • Self-nominations to the above ad hoc committee on Consortium support sent to [email protected] by April 29th • Continue Data management, Outreach, and Landowner Recruitment efforts o Add Consortium logo and/or habitat establishment promo to partner websites o Be prepared to report on Committee progress at next Consortium meeting • Hold next Consortium meeting post-USFWS decision - if possible, prior to harvest

Consortium Member Updates Blank Park Zoo, Jacque Pohl • Through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Zoo Park Partnership program, the Zoo is deepening our relationship with Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge. Grant funds will be used to o Improve pollinator signage on grounds o Increased propagation of native plants (including milkweed) for the Zoo to give away this summer • Plant.Grow.Fly. partners (over 60 local, regional and national organizations) will be focusing on the following initiatives this year:

232 o Expanding online resource for financial and technical aid for native plantings o Expanding outreach on pollinator-friendly mowing practices o Reaching out to corporations-encouraging them to replace turf with natives • The Hope for the Wild Speaker Series featuring Doug Tallamy and Chip Taylor was just held in early 2019 • The Monarch Festival will be held on Sunday, September 15, 2019 Whiterock Conservancy, Dan Gudahl • Come visit WhiteRock! Available habitat for research or enjoying nature • Clark McCloud with the Monarch Research Project uses monarch biotents to breed monarchs • Reiman Gardens hosts the Iowa Butterfly Survey Network and has trainings scheduled this spring: www.iowamonarchs.info • Visit Whiterock on September 21 for our annual Monarch Tagging event • Whiterock is pleased to be a part of the Consortium, and it helps us to pay more attention to opportunities to promote monarchs and other butterfly/insect species and the habitat needed for their survival. Being more connected helps raise awareness with our interest groups and is really necessary to get more attention for promotion of the species. Environmental Defense Fund, David Wolfe • EDF works to support monarch conservation from Texas to Iowa and Minnesota • The Monarch Habitat Exchange is available in Iowa o The Monarch Lab at the University of Minnesota helped develop the monarch quantification tool, which measures quality of habitat instead of quantity. o The program links farmers with resources needed to establish monarch habitat; rewards are higher for those who establish habitat in high priority areas. Bayer, Aimee Hood • Habitally is an app developed through a collaborative effort between Bayer and Iowa State University’s Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology (CSSM); habitat data collected through the app is sent directly to the CSSM. • The CSSM will store and curate the data • The app allows monarch habitat to be recorded and located precisely using GPS; it can even create a polygon and then estimate the area of a planting • All data will be aggregated to the county level by CSSM to protect privacy • Data recorded with the app is then uploaded to the US Fish and Wildlife Service Monarch Conservation Database by CSSM, making it easy for landowners to have their monarch conservation efforts counted as part of the national/state effort Question to be addressed by the Data Management Committee: • Is there concern that data will be duplicated between the app and direct entry into the Monarch Conservation Database? If so, how best to implement quality control?

233 • Question to be addressed by the Data Management and Communication Committees – Provide options at next consortium meeting • Should the Consortium logo be included on the Habitally summary? o Perhaps. It depends on the audience for the handout and if it is used beyond Iowa.

Corteva, Chad Boeckman Corteva is partnering with Pheasants Forever and National 4-H on a pollinator habitat establishment and education campaign. Over the course of the 3 year agreement the intent is to target 50-75 sites owned by Corteva across the US. Pheasants Forever will provide expertise on site preparation, seed mix, establishment and maintenance. 4-H groups will be involved throughout the process to learn about pollinators, habitat establishment and potentially monitoring sites through time documenting species found at the sites. National/Regional Updates

USDA Farm Service Agency, Curt Goettsch IOWA CRP (As of 3/1/2019) Iowa is home to the Nation’s largest CRP program with 106,896 contracts, with the fourth largest number of acres under contract at 1,748,721. Iowa’s average size of a CRP contract is 16.4 acres. GENERAL CRP SIGN-UP - 493,167 Acres Enrolled RARE & DECLINING HABITAT (CP25) – 140,789 acres enrolled Continuous CRP Total - 1,252,408 Acres Enrolled FILTER STRIPS (CP21) – 185,961 acres enrolled RIPARIAN BUFFERS (CP22) - 41,297 acres enrolled FLOOD-PLAIN WETLANDS (CP23) – 116,134 acres enrolled FARMABLE WETLAND PROGRAM (FWP)- 92,717 acres enrolled POLLINATOR HABITAT (CP42) – 219,155 acres enrolled HABITAT BUFFERS (CP33) – 24,237 acres enrolled HIGHLY ERODIBLE LAND INITIATIVE (HELI)- 182,679 acres enrolled

State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) Total: 289,579 acres enrolled SAFE acres by project:

234 Early Successional/Neotropical Birds Habitat - 1,195 acres enrolled Iowa Gaining Ground for Wildlife – 162,306 acres enrolled Grand River - 2,164 acres enrolled Iowa Pheasant Recovery - 86,777 acres enrolled Early Successional Quail Habitat - 37,196 acres enrolled CRP GRASSLAND: 3146 acres enrolled on 65 contracts Monthly reports of CRP numbers can be found at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and- services/conservation-programs/reports-and-statistics/conservation-reserve-program- statistics/index

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lori Altheide Program acres. New acres enrolled. But seeding can happen in a year that is separate from enrollment. Iowa NRCS - FY 2018 Monarch and Pollinator habitat progress Program Monarch Monarch Pollinator Program Acres seeding seeding Acres Acres EQIP 139.4 139.4 59.0 CSP 168.5 320.8 34.0 ACEP 284 WRP 628 EWRP 77.3 Total 307.9 1449.5 93.0

Iowa DNR, Karen Kinkead • The State of Iowa is on the right track with monarch conservation efforts now. It is a large effort that cannot be achieved quickly (much like saving for retirement). Remember we discussed that habitat on the ground was analogous to saving for retirement? Weather (similar to the stock market) had an ideal year this year resulting in great returns (monarchs) on our investments (habitat), but we can’t count on that every year so we must continue our conservation and habitat implementation efforts.

235 • Reminder: the goal of having 6 hectares in the monarch overwintering area is not a one- time goal; we want to see 6 ha as the average area covered. • Monarch conservation efforts are being coordinated across three countries, Canada, United States, and Mexico • Iowa DNR o Research and Monitoring accomplishments: . Multiple species inventory and monitoring program helps track trends in populations of Iowa wildlife . Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program effort has been introduced in Iowa; now it needs to become more popular across the state to help us gauge conservation effort and success o Outreach . Make presentations about monarch conservation across the state, including presentations at Monarch Fest at the Blank Park Zoo o Habitat Accomplishments since January 2015: . 36,311 acres of habitat installed to support wildlife, which adds about 7,500,000 stems of milkweed. . 6,400 acres were added in parks, which adds about 438,000 new stems. • Future meeting guest request: connect with colleague in Mexico to have them provide the Consortium with an update on monarch conservation efforts in Mexico Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency update, Karen Kinkead • Iowa is one of the Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency (MAFWA) states, a regional collaboration of 16 flyway states and 4 Northeast States formed to support monarch conservation efforts. • West Virginia is the lead for NEAFWA (Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia). • MAFWA identifies priority areas for conservation efforts; Iowa is essential to conservation efforts because monarchs breed throughout Iowa. Milkweed planted anywhere in Iowa counts toward national conservation goals. While conservation of the species cannot be achieved by Iowa alone, the effort cannot succeed without habitat restoration in Iowa. • Mid America Monarch Conservation Strategy was approved in June 2018. Nebraska City Nebraska Regional Meeting (hosted by MAFWA and Monarch Joint Venture) in Nov 2018 • 150 attendees from 100 orgs, 30 states. • Brainstorming in groups was captured on flip chart pages—ways to help move the conservation plans forward. MAFWA/MJV consolidating lists Effort in Other States • Ohio DOT: reduced roadside mowing on 80,000 acres by planting habitat • News articles: e.g., Iowa Farm Bureau monarch article was used as a regional example

236 • 10 of the 16 MAFWA states have a monarch or pollinator coordinator • Missourians for Monarchs reported 305,000 acres of habitat work

2019 Commitments for MAFWA are similar to consortium • Review species status (Mexico overwintering acres) and review new science/publications • Consortium/MAFWA needs to summarize accomplishments • Review strategy, what’s working, what isn’t. Monarch Conservation Database: • 18 state level plans in the database (14 of the 16 flyway states). o Michigan and Ohio are also working to create plans. • Georgia, Idaho, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are the other State level plans outside the flyway USFWS, Kraig McPeek Monarch Listing Decision Update: USFWS is in the internal discussion phase and is still going to meet June 2019 deadline. The monarch decision is a high priority within the USFWS. Options for listing decision: Options for Listing Decision: 1. Warrants listing as endangered or threatened 2. Not warranted for listing 3. Warrants listing as a candidate species (i.e., warrants listing, but no immediate action due to USFWS resource constraints) If a decision to list, there is a 12 month period before listing rule becomes final. This time is for federal register notices, outreach, public comment period, USFWS response to comments for final rule-making. June of 2020 would be the conclusion of this 12-month period.

Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy, Steve Bradbury • Version 1 February 2017 - Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy contains basic organization history, framework, and background review • Version 2 March 2018- added Iowa habitat targets, acres and milkweed stems • Version 2.1 Oct 2018 – added additional info on BMPs, landowner recruitment, monitoring, data management, and adaptive management The Iowa Strategy can be converted to Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, if needed based on USFWS June decision.

237 Strategy Targets: With these estimates, Iowa fulfills 12% of total habitat needs for upper Midwest.

Acres Range Stems Range

Urban/Suburban 39,774 198,870 Urban/Suburban 1,300,000 5,600,000

Public 144,041 156,674 Public 28,527,789 31,030,041

Other 62,749 67,049 Other 12,549,800 13,409,800

Road Rights of 19,000 21,000 Road Rights of 6,156,000 6,804,000 Ways Ways

Agricultural 214,000 387,000 Agricultural 78,000,000 131,000,000

Total 480,000 830,000 Total 126,000,000 188,000,000

Data Management Committee, Stephanie Shepherd • Proposes that we use Monarch Conservation Database as primary Iowa reporting tool • In Iowa, we need to capture additional data, such as outreach efforts. Need a more local option for additional, state-specific effort. • Committee proposes hiring Data Manager for the Consortium (general description provided in background material provided prior to the meeting) o Half or full time position • Action Items: o Committee to develop a more detailed description of roles and responsibilities of the proposed Data Manager o Habitally issues (see Bayer summary) Landowner Recruitment Committee, Susan Kozak Committee members have come up with 5-10 people to highlight from their organizations. It’s time to move forward with these efforts; ask for help when it is needed. Encourage more landowners to get involved. Progress updates from Committee members: • Women land and legacy: identified people. They are excited to take the questions and work with landowners. • Farm Bureau: webinar last July, planning pollinator habitat 77 participants. 180 views since. Partner with PF. o 4 monarch related Facebook post 455 likes, 150 shares, 80 comments. o Ag in the classroom program in Linn county made seed bombs.

238 o Buchanan and ___ county. Working on lesson plans for schools. o 6 website/articles in the last year o 5 tweets • IDALS. Planted habitat outside Wallace building. • Partnering with DNR to plant hill on the back side of Wallace Building. Communication Committee, Dana Schweitzer • Thank you to Iowa Pork Producers Association and Ben Crawford for working with us to create the pork video, showing how habitat can be added near a confinement facility o 1 minute teaser version is also available • Iowa Soybean Association: monarch Feb 2018 Iowa Soybean Review • Farm Bureau: webinar, other communications • Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives: article in Living with Energy in Iowa, September issue • IDALS: recognized the Consortium with a Leadership Award in 2018. • Looking forward o Logo is finalized; ISU will send media kit so please add logo to your websites/materials o Hope to release 3-4 videos – with links to media kit – over the next 3-9 months Budget Summary and Discussion, Dan Robison Summary of Recent Years • Since 2015, $380,000 in gifts from consortium members • ISU has contributed $1.2 million (cash and faculty cost share) to support ongoing research, Extension and facilitation of Consortium activities • ISU proposals/grants: $1.7 million competitive research grants (designated only for research) • $2.3 million funded as grants from National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to Consortium members statewide for acres of habitat restoration and technical assistance (INHF, IDALS, etc.) Looking Forward • First priority is to maintain and expand organizations in the Consortium table, but maybe it’s time to consider an approach to stabilize funding/in kind contributions to support the effort. • This would allow a more predictable budget. Would also demonstrate commitment and sustainability to USFWS • Something small for small orgs $1,000. Larger orgs could contribute more, maybe $5,000, and in-kind for organizations that are restricted from providing funds

239 Responses County conservation boards may not be able to contribute funds; i.e., different status for orgs with bylaw limitations Might be wise not to disrupt the existing structure that is working smoothly Raising some dollars for data manager. Sustainability and consistency for the future and demonstrated commitment. Perhaps form a committee to explore legalities, opportunities. Baseline principal: do no harm. Support the data management position. In recent years, the Consortium goals have been to develop the conservation strategy leading up to the decision. With the listing decision coming up, and before we commit to more formal participation, it would be good to look at the next 2-3 years for what the Consortium will do. Action: Form an ad hoc committee representative of the Consortium’s diversity to address this issue and report back to full Consortium at next meeting with options. Ad hoc committee will use existing budget and budget history (gifts, in-kind, etc.) to formulate approaches to support consortium activities into the future under different USFWS listing decision scenarios. This will include potential funding of a 0.5 or 1.0 FTE data manager position.

Next Steps-Dan Robison • Self-nominations to the above ad hoc committee on Consortium support sent to [email protected] by April 29th • Continue Data management, Outreach, and Landowner Recruitment efforts o Add Consortium logo and/or habitat establishment promo to partner websites o Be prepared to report on Committee progress at next Consortium meeting • Hold next Consortium meeting post-USFWS decision - if possible, prior to harvest • Monarch Conservation Database Training Webinar to be held Thursday, April 25th from 11 am to 12 pm central time

Consortium Ad Hoc Committee Teleconference Summary

240 9/4/2019

Participants: Alliant Energy, Bayer, Conservation Corps of Iowa and Minnesota, Conservation Districts of Iowa, Corteva Agriscience, Iowa Corn Growers Association, IDALS, Iowa DNR, Iowa Pork Producers Association, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Soybean Association, ISU

Agenda • Meeting purpose review, and call for any additional agenda items • Review of policy status and timeline for federal monarch decisions • Call for attention to overall budget situation and needs context, including timeline • Review of budget detail and database manager approach and rationale • Discussion • Consideration of Consortium funding options; e.g., o Able members to offer ad hoc individual contributions (not expecting members to offer funds during this call), combined with continued in-kind contributions o Consortium members to commit to annual dues approach (perhaps scaled by size of member organization), combined with continued in-kind contributions, or 3) other alternatives. • Review discussion and potential action items/next steps. Conclude Meeting Summary • Goal of the meeting is to provide a recommendation(s) to the Consortium with a “do no harm” perspective

• Monarch ESA listing decision timeline o Decision rescheduled to Dec 2020 o Range of decisions remain the same as discussed in spring Consortium meeting (proposed listing rule; no listing decision; candidate species, but no immediate action) o Decision will be based, in part, on status of voluntary conservation efforts. USFWS will consider: . If efforts are based on best available science . If there is evidence that voluntary programs will be implemented into the future o Discussion noted that for a no listing decision that can withstand legal challenge, voluntary programs, such as Iowa’s, need to be implemented and sustained. If a proposed listing, two alternatives: continue conservation efforts under a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) to provide regulatory certainty and flexibility (current Consortium strategy) or have private landowners proceed on their own in obtaining incidental take permits from the USFWS

• Future Consortium Funding Options o Consortium Budget Status and Projected Budget Status through June 30, 2021 (see Attachment 1)

241 . From April, 2015 through June, 2019 approximately $2,200K from gifts to ISU Foundation, ISU/CALS contributions, and grants . Estimated balance as of July 1, 2019 was $489K . Estimated budget deficit assuming status quo effort, with and without data management support ($50K per year), ranges between -$20 to -$120K

o Ad hoc Committee Recommendation 1: To support an orderly transition to future Consortium efforts that are responsive to the Dec 2020 listing decision, the Consortium will be provided a proposed budget plan that runs through June 30, 2021 (see budget portion of attachment). It was agreed that maintaining the current level of effort, including an additional $50K per year for data management (see attachment for a summary of data management tasks and activities), is consistent with current Consortium objectives and indicates a commitment to implement the Iowa Monarch Conservation Strategy at least through June of 2021. . It was further agreed that an additional $125K was needed to address the projected budget shortfall. This shortfall will be addressed through ad hoc contributions of individual member organizations (see option 1 in Agenda) . Any grant proposals that require cost-share (e.g., NRCS or NFWF grants) will require additional ad hoc contributions

o Ad hoc Committee Recommendation 2: For July, 2019, and beyond, it was proposed that a group of 3 to 4 consortium members work with CALS during the first half of 2020 to develop budget and funding options responsive to the December 2020 listing decision scenarios. These options will be reviewed by the Consortium sufficiently in advance of June 2021 to ensure a smooth transition to a new funding model, as appropriate. It is anticipated that funding options will include an approach that sets an annual contribution (see option 2 in Agenda), recognizing that some organizations cannot make multi-year commitments.

o It is recognized that some member organizations, by regulation or operating budgets, cannot provide financial support; however, a continued commitment of in- kind contributions is essential for supporting the Consortium’s efforts. Summary of Additional Discussions During the Meeting

Is this listing decision placing a greater financial responsibility on NGOs, as compared to other listing decisions?

Many of the previous listing decisions occurred in the west where federal agencies own a large percentage of land and through their Section 7 consultations with USFWS provide significant resources for conservation. In addition, farm bill programs provide significant support to farmers and ranchers. For monarchs in the Midwest, the area of federal land is relatively small, so outside farm bill programs, there is comparatively less direct federal support. The Iowa Strategy assumes currently enrolled farm bill acres dominated by warm season, native grasses will be maintained and be available for enhancements (adding milkweed and forbs) - but non-federal resources may be needed to defray costs for these enhancements.

242

Could the Consortium’s monarch focus be expanded to include pollinators more generally to enhance funding opportunities?

It was agreed this was a good point for future Consortium discussion.

Monarch Data Management 12/2/2019 Participants: Conservation Districts of Iowa, Corteva Agriscience, Iowa Corn Growers Association, IDALS, Iowa DNR, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Pork Producers Association, Iowa Soybean Association, ISU Agenda • CSSM intro • Share data management staffing progress • Update on USFWS database and its data • Review our data management needs o Anything missing? Set priorities Meeting Summary Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology intro • Have developed the Master Sample of Agriculture • Worked with USDA for National Resource Inventory • Pioneered use of mainframe computer • Habitally Mission • Survey services • Educational opportunities • Research in survey sampling, stats, data science 3 branches of organization • Research • Data services—Alan Dotts • Survey research services Projects: • Conservation Effects Assessment Project • CLD3 Community Learning Data Driven Discovery • Habitally: support for entering information about monarch butterfly habitat—did not develop app, store data and manage database • CSAFE: Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Science

243 • Iowa Seat Belt Use Survey • Caucus surveys Lots of data management, storage, survey research, etc.

CSSM has worked with sensitive information sources, not releasing private information. Data is aggregated.

Would CSSM involvement need to be half time or full time? Half time support, staff expertise as needed

USFWS Database and data Deadline for entering data to be used in the listing decision in May 2020.

Need more communication push: help landowners enter it themselves if outside of CRP Need remind people to put data in

Data Management Staffing Progress Is anything missing from draft position description?

Priorities for data manager 1. Iowa data into USFWS MCD, quality control is part of that 2. Measuring the goals of Iowa plan • Habitat and outreach 3. Quality control component: all data is being stored at the county level in the MCD. Difficult for quality control piece. Are we double counting any acres? If we need to remove any habitat entries, make sure we don’t remove it twice. • Is there a level of spatial data that we are comfortable with? Township level. GPS? • Who are we comfortable with having access to that data? • Consider giving option of what scale is shared • Consider a portal to enter data to CSSM to make it easier for users

CRP is being analyzed at the national level; Iowa landowners do not need to report it.

MCD is not user friendly; Habitally or other data entry option needed for public

Next Steps • Need data entry option available by April (before farmers plant) • Get permission for Iowa data from USFWS quickly. Let CSSM begin to piece together what is there. • Promote data entry • CSSM needs clarification on what training may be needed

244

Iowa Monarch Conservation Consortium Virtual Meeting 3/31/2020

Participants: Alliant Energy, Bayer, Blank Park Zoo, Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa, Corteva Agriscience, Environmental Defense Fund, Iowa Corn Growers Association, IDALS, Iowa DNR, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Pork Producers Association, Iowa RECs, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Iowa Soybean Association, ISU, Monarch Watch, The Nature Conservancy, Pheasants Forever, Tallgrass Prairie Center, Trees Forever, USDA ARS, USDA FSA, USDA NRCS, USFWS, Xerces Society

Agenda

Welcome and Introductions Craig Hill and Dan Robison Acknowledge New Members • Conservation Corps • Conservation Districts of Iowa Review Agenda

Update on 2019/2020 Overwintering Population John Pleasants

Federal and Regional Updates • USFWS Listing Decision Process/Timeline Kraig McPeek • USDA-FSA Conservation Programs Amanda De Jong • USDA-NRCS Conservation Programs Jon Hubbert • Mid America Regional Update Karen Kinkead (IDNR)

Consortium Member Updates • Member Organizations • IDALS Susan Kozak • IDNR Karen Kinkead • ISU Dana Schweitzer

Data Management Subcommittee Update Stephanie Shepherd (IDNR) Zhengyuan Zhu – ISU/CSSM

Consortium Funding Model Dan Robison • Consensus Funding Plan through June 2021 • Funding Status • Funding Model Options beyond June 2021

245 • Ad hoc workgroup and Charge

Wrap-up and Next Steps

Meeting Summary

1. The Consortium welcomed the Conservation Corps of Minnesota and Iowa and the Conservation Districts of Iowa as new members

2. 2019/2020 Overwintering Population Presentations and Summary of Discussion– The 2019/2020 population (ca. 2.8 ha occupied forest canopy) was less than the 2018/2019 population (ca. 6 ha). Year to year fluctuations in insect populations are expected and a 2019/2020 decline was anticipated, but not to this degree. Factors contributing to the 2019/2020 decline included above-average late summer/fall temperatures in the upper Midwest, which delayed the fall migration, and a severe fall drought in Texas. Maintaining a long-term average of 6 ha occupied forest canopy will ensure the population is resilient to climatic variability. Establishing and maintaining milkweed habitat in the summer breeding grounds over the next 20 years is essential for maintaining a 6 ha long term average.

3. Federal and Regional Updates –

a. USFWS: Remain on track for December 2020 decision. May 31 deadline for entering habitat data in the USFWS Monarch Conservation Database (MCD). PECE analysis will begin mid to late June. Federal Register Notice in August.

b. USDA-FSA: For General CRP sign up, 9975 offers for approximately 274 acres; final is 267K acres (97% acceptance rate). Also SAFE acres and ongoing continuous sign-ups (April and October 2020). This is a change from very condensed summer sign-ups in recent years. Also please note that SHIPP is NOT a cover crop program; it will operate like a normal CRP contract, but on a shorter contract term. Ninety-five contracts for new CP43 (STRIPS) practice; viewed as a working lands program with flexibility for the client and anticipate it will be fairly popular. While a decline in total CRP acres in Iowa, most of these acres are with contracts that are >10 years old. These older practices had less emphasis on pollinator habitat. It’s not so much a numbers game as it is consideration for quality of habitat that is being added with new contracts as old contracts roll over.

c. USDA-NRCS: For 2019 - ACEP 757 acres; CSP 447 acres; EQIP 260 acres = 1,268 total acres over 100+ contracts

246 d. MAFWA: States working on getting conservation efforts into the Monarch Conservation Database. None of the personnel facilitating in any state pollinator/monarch efforts (including Iowa) that funded on hard money and/or fully funded. MAFAW committees trying to keep with increasing volume of scientific publications.

4. Consortium Member Updates a. Conservation Corps: Can offer AmeriCorp crews (as fee-for-service) around the state of Iowa for monarch/habitat monitoring and habitat management (e.g., brush removal, prairie seed harvest). Summer 2021 likely start date.

b. Trees Forever is “Creating a Buzz” including webinars to connect with ag educators. CEUs for certified crop advisers and other ag practitioners are available. Also more outreach events, hopefully summer 2020.

c. Sand County Foundation: Last fall Iowa was added to Minnesota and Wisconsin in competitive Pollinator Habitat Grant Program. Agriculture and science teachers apply for grants and partner with local landowners to create or enhance habitat for pollinators and monarch butterflies. Selected high schools and FFA Chapters receive native wildflower seedlings, a training webinar, consultation, and a $1,000 grant for the school district or FFA chapter to offset project expenses.

d. INHF: Been successful in getting NFWF grants for public agency partners to plant habitat. New habitat is approximately 5000 acres in Iowa, plus additional enhanced habitat statewide.

e. ICGA: providing communications and funding support for field days (Soil and Water Conservation Districts and Pheasants Forever) and the Sand County Foundation Pollinator Habitat Grant Program.

f. IDALS: Focusing on urban areas and water quality initiative. Purchased a supply of seed mix so the contractors did not have to buy it in small quantities. We purchased and can give out as they do bioreactors/saturated buffers. Also partnered with ISU on an artificial wetland installation. Water quality initiative (WQI): more than 50 wetlands in planning/construction. Including habitat around these areas as long as it lines up with landowner goals.

g. IDNR: Adult monarch surveys of public land showed steady adult populations the past two years; data collected through the Multiple Species Inventory Management (MSIM) program and two papers published the past year. Encouraging citizens get involved in the Integrated Monarch Monitoring Program (with Monarch Joint Venture); the more comprehensive monitoring data we have will support Iowa strategy.

247 h. ISU: N. Krishnan et al; insecticide risk assessment paper published in Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. K. Fisher et al; radio telemetry and larval movement papers published in Environmental Entomology and Journal of Insect Conservation, respectively. NRCS-Iowa final report for water quality and monarch conservation; “stacking” practices with saturated buffers submitted. National Pork Board final report for establishing monarch habitat near hog confinement facilities posted on NPB website. NRCS Conservation Innovation grant, “Enhancing Monarch Butterfly Conservation in Iowa” final report due summer 2020. Invited to present at Soil and Water Conservation Society conference July 2020. New ISU Extension resources: fact sheet on habitat within riparian buffers and updated “5 Ways” publication to standard 8.5x11 in.

5. Data Management Subcommittee update- MCD and HabiTally are both vehicles for entering data; MCD best for organizations submitting data for multiple sites; HabiTally best for individuals with one or small number of sites. In the MCD, habitat practice data can include everything from planting new habitat to maintenance practices (e.g., burning). Please enter outstanding habitat practice data by 3/31/2020!! ISU-CSSM uploads HabiTally date from across the nation into the MCD. CSSM supported a recent release of an update to the Apple/IOS HabiTally app. Launch of HabiTally for Android is imminent. CSSM working with USFWS staff to better understand data structure within the MCD to prepare the software that efficiently prepares accurate habitat establishment and maintenance practice reports and track progress towards Iowa Strategy habitat targets.

6. Consortium Funding Model – D. Robison reviewed October 2019 Consortium consensus plan for funding.

a. The first component was to maintain current support, with the addition of data management, through June 2021. To meet this objective the plan goal was 125K of gifts to the ISU foundation, matched with 150K of ‘cash’ and staff time from CALS. Thus far Corteva and Bayer have provided 45K. The Dean appreciated that organizations are considering options to help close the 75K shortfall.

b. The second component was to create an ad hoc committee to work with CALS to prepare funding model options to support the effort from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. The workgroup will develop options for two scenarios – species listed or not listed in December 2020. The workgroup will prepare options for review by the Consortium in early Fall 2020, final option selection by December 2020, and January 2021 begin implementation so funding model on-line July 1, 2021.

i. Confirmed subcommittee members include: Corteva, ICGA, Alliant, INHF, IPPA, IDALS, and IFBF.

248

Consortium Budget meeting 5/8/2020 Alliant Energy, Corteva Agriscience, ISU, Iowa Corn Growers Association, IDALS, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Pork Producers Association Agenda • Welcome and introductions • Opening remarks – note from D. Robison • Review funding background and committee charge (see below) • Identify committee tasks and milestones for option selection • Set next meeting time

Meeting prep content: Funding model committee charge: Consortium Consensus Charge:

“A group of 3 to 4 consortium members will work with CALS during the first half of 2020 to develop budget and funding options responsive to December 2020 listing decision scenarios [i.e., listed or not listed]. These options will be reviewed by the Consortium sufficiently in advance of June 2021 to ensure a smooth transition to a new funding model, as appropriate. It is anticipated that funding options will include an approach that sets an annual contribution, recognizing that some organizations cannot make multi-year commitments.”

Proposed Milestones: September 2020 Committee identifies budget model options; October 2020 options presented to Consortium; November-December 2020, Consortium provides feedback to Committee & option selection; Jan 2021 confirm budget model (plan); July 2021 implement budget model.

General implementation issues to resolve include, but are not limited to:

1. For those organizations that can provide financial resources, how to handle constraints in making multi-year commitments for some?

249 2. For those organizations that cannot provide financial resources due to their charters, how to identify and quantify in-kind contributions? 3. Regardless of financial or in-kind contributions, how to equitably scale contributions according to the size of the member-partner organization (or some other metric). Scope of Consortium efforts starting July 1, 2021, which impacts budget development: 1. Scope likely different if monarch listed or not listed. a. If species listed, development and implementation of a CCAA (as envisioned in the Conservation Strategy) will require significantly increased effort (internal operations and documenting habitat establishment and tracking) as compared to facilitating implementation of a voluntary effort if species not listed (i.e., more or less status quo).

2. In addition to facilitating Consortium internal functions, current budget model includes outreach/extension to increase landowner adoption of conservation practices, data management, and research match funds. What is the proposed scope of this work after July 1, 2021?

4. Length of spending plan; e.g., 3 or 5 years?

Meeting Summary

• Two options based on listing decision: o If the monarch is listed, we will need to change the Strategy into a Candidate for Conservation Agreement with Assurances. This will take more time, effort, funds o If it is not listed, it will take less effort to continue what we are doing now o Continue data efforts in both scenarios • Longevity of the Monarch Conservation Database (MCD)? o The USFWS is likely to continue the MCD to show habitat progress if the monarch is listed; need MCD and data to be able to defend the no list decision o Should include an asterisk in either scenario- to mention challenge needed to build our own database o revisit listing decision in 5 years? . Yes, every 5 years USFWS must revisit the decision. • Functions for helping the Consortium along. Last few years: CALS… internal funding. Hours of effort. Efforts we propose that we continue going forward: o Internal functioning o Landowner recruitment/implementation o Funds for leverage for cost share grants . Categories where support dollars are spent: • Operations • Outreach, extension • Research • Data management

250 o Options for length of a spending plan were discussed: 3 years is the target for a future funding model o Some orgs give dollars and some provide in-kind support . Ask orgs what they can give . Need to outline what dollars will support and make a formal ask . Accelerate timeline to distribute request in July

Next Steps

• Normalize contributions to in-kind contributions • Need a metric for multi national orgs to Iowa only • Also let us know your organization’s priorities for Consortium: operations, landowner recruitment or operations, outreach, resource support (research?) • Agreed it is a three year budget window • ISU will compile ideas and share email to let people know what lines up. • Options will include listing versus non listing scenario in the decision document

Monitoring 4/23/2020 Participants: Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa, IDALS, Iowa DNR, ISU Agenda Consider option of Americorps team performing monarch monitoring tasks in Iowa Meeting Summary Americorps details • Have done bat monitoring with ISU collaboration in the past • Often includes habitat management (or more than one goal) • In Story County o Saw a need o Priority blocks were selected Options for Summer of 2021 • Member/partners hire for full work • Possible tasks o Planting

251 o Seed harvest o Brush removal o Monitor priority block o Help with natural resource research project in prairie – help needed? o Monitor + teach landowner how to do monitoring • Possible team commitment timelines o Week at a time o Summer long o Just monitoring; train the trainer • Funding o Monitor all summer or week to week o Partners hire? . INHF . DNR . Conservation Corps . IRFA . ICGA-help us connect with farmers? . IDALS • Most interested in maintenance o Would members donate $10,000 to support crews doing their sites + others • Costs o Summer crew about $50,000

• Other notes: o New sites don’t need monarch monitoring—vegetation only o Will be difficult to get donations for the priority locations (selected by USGS), which are the locations that best support the Consortium mission o Americorps can monitor and train to monitor—won’t have advice for managing trouble spots o Possible grant/cost-share agreement? . Match cost share with Consortium support and train and monitor priority sites . Include train the trainer • Send a few people from organizations to learn to monitor . Possibly include funds to hire a habitat expert o Next Steps . Summarize options to consider • What would a week look like? • Draft summer schedule • Provide a couple model options

252

Monarch Monitoring Team 5/26/2020 Participants: Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa, IDALS, Iowa DNR, ISU Agenda Continue consideration of Americorps monarch monitoring options Meeting Summary Americorps details • 5 person crew • Usually $4,900 per week • Could be $5,900 (with lodging and food) o Other equipment needed? . For IMMP protocols---nets? surveyors tape. PVC meter square quadrat. $35-$40. o The crews can spend the night where they are going. Project host covers that. They can camp… cabins, air B&B. o Food is $20 per member per day o Monday – thurs 7-5:30 pm; Can be flexible, around rain (with notice) • Usually like a week between when college gets out. o Need 2 weeks of training 1 week of americorps training; o week 2 is chainsaw training, pesticide applicator test—week 2 could be what we need—monitoring protocols). o June 1 or June 7 could be on site with these parameters. • Americorps Service term: Needs a certain number of hours to get their award at the end. May be about 450 hours. Between 10 and 11 weeks. **need hours** Brainstorming • 10-11 weeks. Start would be monarch adults being here. But this timeline would not cover the entire summer… • Timing better for Consortium member who needed habitat work done. Train landowner to continue education and maybe monitoring. • A half-time term is also available. May – November. Will probably appeal to students who want the summer internship. • Need to figure out how to pay for it. Only on site for 4 hours a week. Pitch as a regional thing, stay in an area of the state. Or habitat work + monitoring training…

253 • Americorps usually works on public land (federal funding) but crew can monitor in other areas if the crew is specifically created for that purpose • Crew is brand new. We can make it what we need: monitoring, monitoring and habitat work. Typically we don’t put our summer crew through fire school.

Need context from members:

o What help do they need? o Anyone interested in monitoring or habitat management assistance? . Mowing? Fire, brush removal. Applying herbicides . Consider interest versus willing to pay o Who manages the habitat acres that are planted in CRP or private projects? o Does demand for habitat management exceed supply?

Monarch Consortium Budget Committee 6/26/2020 Participants: Alliant Energy, Corteva Agriscience, Iowa Corn Growers Association, IDALS, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Pork Producers Association, ISU Agenda • Prepare to share with Consortium • Consider structure: cash versus in-kind donations

Meeting Summary Reviewing progress from last meeting: If not listed, what support do we anticipate? Feedback received and incorporated. Discussed options A and B last time. • Today: how to structure a voluntary ask. Cash versus in-kind • Don’t have to decide today, but what are some points we need to consider? o Good topic for the full Consortium… so help frame topics so their discussion is efficient. Notes to consider • IDALS would help build and implement the CCAA. (in-kind) • Corteva is working to increase biodiversity in landscape. Planting project (in-kind) may be easier as habitat helps with diversity.

254 • Goal is to go beyond what organizations are doing already (e.g., outreach) • In kind is easier for people to support right now with COVID involved. • Alliant may sponsor an event • Specific asks for in kind help are easier • ICGA supported habitat field days with PF last year • Reach out to other orgs that own land in Iowa to encourage them to join/donate to Consortium o E.g., data farms, Walmart, HyVee, stormwater management, cemeteries, golf courses, solar farms

Monarch Monitoring Team 7/23/2020 Participants: Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa, IDALS, Iowa DNR, ISU

Agenda • Consider combining IMMP grids with Consortium member projects and needs • Is it possible to combine monitoring/maintenance efforts? • What site maintenance is done in established plants and by whom?

Meeting Summary • Good news is that at least a few Consortium members are interested in monitoring; funding is uncertain • There is a need for some habitat maintenance, but the need is met by contractors available • Landowners do their own mowing but need help with burns and sometimes with brush remove in established habitats

Americorps team timeline options: • Based on hours… how many you have • Full term: jan till nov • Half time: may to nov • Quarter: may to august

Easiest way to get funding for what we need is to apply for a grant

New Grant Option to Explore • Carver Foundation (Iowa based grant funding for private nonprofits): give to research/education. o Say for summer o $50 to 70,000

255 o Create protocol o Remnant, reconstruction roadside, CRP. o I35 or statewide o Priority blocks… • Iowa DNR supports grant application and would help draft; includes help with monitoring protocols and picking locations • ISU could provide letter of support from ISU or from Consortium… • Deadline: Nov 15, Sunday

256