Resource Library

Explore the recently created ArcGIS Online StoryMap by researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada! Their StoryMap documents their project that applied the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) to the Medway Creek watershed in southwestern Ontario. The watershed features intensive farming in the upper parts, with approximately 90% of the fields tile-drained, while downstream areas are urban. Their research used ACPF Version 7 to analyze 45 catchments and 627 agricultural parcels, selecting 140 priority fields for investigation based on recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs). Their project aims to connect proven U.S. conservation methods with Ontario’s agricultural landscape to support both farm productivity and downstream water quality goals. We at the ACPF Hub see this project as an ideal model for innovative ACPF investigations and applications! 

The manual provides detailed instructions for using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) Toolbox Version 7, which is designed for watershed planning and precision conservation in agricultural landscapes. It guides users through the preparation and processing of high-resolution terrain and land use data, offers procedures for the siting and assessment of multiple conservation practices, and outlines utilities for data management, all structured specifically for use with ArcGIS Pro Version 3.0 and above. The manual emphasizes the need for advanced GIS skills and collaborative stakeholder involvement to effectively deploy the ACPF tools and improve water quality at the HUC12 watershed scale.

The ACPF Version 7 Toolbox introduces significant updates, including three new tools and one major tool modification focused on identifying and prioritizing locations for phosphorus removal structures (P-Traps) to address dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) in agricultural watersheds. This release supports near-national ACPF use with a new national field boundary collection and streamlined workflows for building watershed geodatabases, including improved utilities for data initialization, soils, and land use extraction, and field boundary updating. Additional changes include expanded depression and bioreactor siting criteria, new indices for DRP risk, and enhanced support for state-specific data, making conservation planning more comprehensive and geographically scalable.

The ACPF National Hub is supporting a near-national scale of ACPF use. To accomplish this, a national field boundary collection has been assembled and made available through a web feature service. You no longer download existing data from our website; simply choose a HUC12 and use the Utilities in the toolbox. 

If you know your HUC12 ID, open the Utilities drawer in the ACPF Toolbox and paste the ID into the u1. Initialize ACPF Core Data and you're on your way! Or explore the ACPF Core Data Availability map to locate your HUC12 ID.

These services allow a user to access the field boundary collection on a HUC12 basis and begin the creation of an ACPF file geodatabase (FileGDB). By using the Utilities tools u1–u4, the user can create an ACPF core database in a file geodatabase format for one of over 50,000 agricultural HUC12 watersheds in the US.

Download the ACPF Toolbox Version 7 to access the latest advancements in agricultural conservation planning. Version 7 introduces three new tools, an updated tool, and several other minor enhancements. For a detailed summary of these updates, as well as step-by-step instructions for creating an ACPF file geodatabase, consult the release notes. 

^{Toolbox Adjustment Update ACPF_V7_Pro_092025}

The ACPF Quarterly Newsletter for October 2025 highlights the release of the ACPF Toolbox Version 7 and the newly formatted and updated ACPF manual. It also informs readers about the Florida ACPF expansion, the launch of the new ACPF website, and the new YouTube channel. There is an update on training opportunities, and the ACPF spotlights the ACPF P-Trap tools. Please feel free to share the link with your colleagues. 

If you are new to the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), you can begin with the publicly available self-paced online technical training, which contains eight modules covering topics from ACPF basics to conservation practice siting tools. The course is designed for users with some GIS experience and assumes familiarity with ArcGIS Pro workflows.

These videos represent our most current instructional materials available as of 2025. The ACPF has recently been updated to Version 7, introducing new tools and modifications that are not yet reflected in the videos. We are in the process of developing updated resources. 

The training videos are primarily used as part of our self-paced and online training sessions, where they are supplemented with additional context, content, and support. While you are welcome to use the videos independently for viewing and reference, you will gain the most comprehensive understanding by engaging with them within our guided training environments.

The ACPF Watershed Applications Workshop is an applied training developed for watershed planners, conservation professionals, agency staff, and others engaged in agricultural conservation. The aim is to help participants leverage ACPF outputs for enhanced watershed planning, stakeholder engagement, and implementation of conservation practices.

The attached document is a trainers’ guide for the “Watershed Applications of the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF)” workshop, designed to help conservation planners and practitioners use ACPF outputs for watershed and farm-scale planning. It outlines the purpose, intended audiences, learning objectives, and recommended instructional approaches, emphasizing that the training is not a technical primer for running the ACPF ArcGIS toolbox but rather focuses on interpreting, validating, and applying ACPF results. The guide provides sample agendas for both in-person and online formats, describes modular content (including networking, using ACPF results, technical fundamentals, and state-specific resources), and offers practical tips for maximizing participant engagement. Evaluation surveys, both immediate and six-month follow-up, are included to assess training effectiveness and guide continuous improvement.

This resource is a comprehensive FAQ page designed to help you quickly find answers to the most common questions asked in the ACPF forum.

This paper introduces the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), a geospatial method for identifying and evaluating where to place multiple conservation practices to lower nutrient loss in small Midwestern agricultural watersheds. Using high-resolution spatial data, such as soil, land use, and lidar-derived topography, the framework automates the process of finding suitable locations for conservation measures like cover crops, grassed waterways, controlled drainage, wetlands, and saturated buffers. The authors demonstrate the method in two different watersheds (Beaver Creek, Iowa, and Lime Creek, Illinois), creating planning scenarios and using a spreadsheet tool to estimate if various practice combinations can reach the targeted 40% nitrate reduction for Gulf hypoxia mitigation. The results suggest that strategic combinations of practices, particularly wetlands and cover crops, can fulfill nutrient reduction goals while taking less than 5% of cropland out of production, highlighting the framework's potential to support efficient, data-driven watershed conservation planning.

This paper presents a GIS-based framework for classifying and mapping riparian buffer opportunities in Midwestern headwater watersheds using high-resolution lidar-derived digital elevation models (DEMs). The approach identifies where riparian vegetation can most effectively intercept surface runoff, interact with shallow groundwater, and stabilize streambanks, assigning buffer design types based on site-specific landscape and hydrologic attributes. Applying this classification to six Iowa and Illinois watersheds showed that well-designed riparian buffers occupying as little as 2.5% of watershed area could potentially intercept runoff from 81–94% of upland contributing areas, with significant variation in buffer width needs and function among different glacial landform regions. The results support precision conservation planning by enabling targeted placement of riparian buffers to achieve water quality benefits, and the methodology is implemented as part of the ACPF ArcGIS toolbox.

This paper outlines the development and structure of the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) database, which supports high-resolution, field-level, and watershed-scale conservation planning across more than 6,000 HUC12 watersheds in the US Midwest. The ACPF database combines spatially explicit field boundaries, multi-year crop history from the USDA-NASS Cropland Data Layer (CDL), and soil attributes from SSURGO to enable precise placement of conservation practices using ArcGIS tools. The framework converts classified remote-sensing pixel data to the field level, offering comprehensive land use and crop rotation summaries needed to link farm management with watershed improvement goals. The database is publicly accessible and assists in conservation planning, modeling, and trend analysis in agricultural land use, especially for projects like ACPF and the Daily Erosion Project.

The attached paper is a supplemental materials section for the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF): 3. Land Use and Field Boundary Database, specifically focused on the methodology for creating land use and field boundary datasets that support the ACPF’s watershed-scale conservation analysis.  It details the step-by-step editing and refinement of USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) pre-2008 field boundary data. The process involves reconciling county-level discrepancies, using NASS Cropland Data Layer and aerial imagery to split fields with mixed crops, and aligning field boundaries with recent patterns of actual land use. The result is a set of field polygons optimized for tracking crop rotations and supporting precision conservation planning by ensuring each field polygon represents a real, management-relevant agricultural unit. 

These ACPF tutorials are archived videos from 2018 that demonstrate ACPF Tools using ArcMap software, which is no longer supported by Esri. Although these videos are still high quality and useful for learning, some content may now be outdated. For the newest instructional materials, please refer to our current tutorials on our YouTube Channel or take advantage of our self-paced and live Zoom workshops available through our website.

Connected Papers is a visual tool that helps researchers discover and explore academic papers by generating interactive graphs showing relationships based on content similarity, not just citations. Users input a specific paper, keyword, or DOI, and receive a network map where nodes represent papers and edges display their degree of relatedness, measured by overlapping citations and references. The platform streamlines literature review by highlighting both foundational works and emerging research and integrates with scholarly databases like arXiv, PubMed, and Semantic Scholar. Connected Papers offers both free and premium plans, enabling an efficient overview, exploration, and organization of research in any academic field.

Enter the following citation and explore the array of academic papers connected to the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework:

Tomer, M. D., Porter, S. A., James, D. E., Boomer, K. M., Kostel, J. A., & McLellan, E. (2013). Combining precision conservation technologies into a flexible framework to facilitate agricultural watershed planning. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 68(5), 113A-120A. 

This paper presents a flexible framework that integrates precision conservation technologies to enhance agricultural watershed planning by efficiently reducing nutrient and sediment losses from farmland. The approach emphasizes improving soil health as a foundation, then applies spatial data (like lidar, soil surveys, and land use information) to prioritize and locate a diverse suite of conservation practices at in-field, below-field, and riparian scales, tailoring scenarios to local conditions. Through a step-wise process, the framework maps opportunities for targeted practices such as controlled drainage, wetlands, grassed waterways, bioreactors, and riparian buffers, fully leveraging GIS-based analysis for scenario development and stakeholder engagement. The authors argue that this adaptable, multi-practice strategy supports voluntary conservation, maximizes ecosystem services (including crop production and water quality), and accommodates landowner and watershed community preferences.

The factsheet offers the NRCS a clear overview of how the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) can enhance its conservation planning efforts. It explains how ACPF creates high-resolution output maps that assist NRCS staff in locating ideal sites for conservation practices such as wetlands, bioreactors, buffer strips, and WASCOBs. This streamlines planning and helps prioritize effective actions. The factsheet also notes that these outputs can be easily integrated into NRCS tools like ArcGIS, Conservation Desktop, and online platforms, supporting both pre-planning and field discussions with farmers. Additionally, it highlights ACPF’s role in encouraging conversations with producers, scoring and ranking funding applications, and providing scientific support for conservation funding, which enables the NRCS to allocate resources where they will be most effective. Finally, it directs NRCS staff on how to access ACPF data and training, promoting wider adoption and skill development within the agency.

This document offers guidance for customizing the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) GIS toolbox to improve the placement of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) at the subwatershed level. It highlights important factors for conservation planning, such as ecoregion traits, slope, soil properties, management issues, and barriers to adoption. It also provides recommended settings for specific ACPF tools like depression identification, drainage water management, contour buffer strips, nutrient removal wetlands, and WASCOBs. The guidance stresses the importance of adjusting user inputs based on local landscape conditions, collaborating with field staff, and using an iterative process to enhance BMP siting results for better water quality and resource management. The document bases its advice on NRCS practice standards, program guidance, and user experience, supporting the effective use of GIS technology in agricultural conservation planning.

The ACPF team, in collaboration with our partners, developed a series of graphics illustrating how the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) can support the EPA's Nine Element Watershed Planning process. These visuals are designed for watershed and conservation planners interested in exploring how the ACPF can enhance their efforts. 

The purpose of this user guide is to serve as a reference for conservation practitioners working with the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) and ACPF results in a watershed context. This user guide is not written for ArcGIS users, but for field staff and watershed planners who work with GIS specialists and ACPF results to implement conservation plans and practices. The user guide reviews the results from each of the ACPF toolboxes to provide an understanding of how these results are created, what goes into producing them, and to encourage conservation practitioners to understand how they may be used to inform conservation planning, broadly speaking. The intention of this user guide is to familiarize conservation practitioners with information about what’s going on behind the scenes in the ACPF toolboxes so practitioners can work with a GIS specialist running the ACPF to get the best results possible for watersheds of interest.

Researchers at Purdue University spoke with GIS technicians, watershed coordinators, and conservation planners in six watersheds in Iowa and Minnesota between October 2016 and June 2017 to learn what has worked for them when engaging diverse stakeholders around conservation using the ACPF.

The ACPF team held a Watershed Applications of ACPF virtual workshop in August 2020. As a follow-up to this work, the team created a graphic illustrating how the ACPF can be used in tandem with other Wisconsin-based tools to meet area goals.

This document provides instructions for accessing and using Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) results services in ArcGIS Pro via ArcGIS Online. It lists five specific services corresponding to different sections of the ACPF Toolbox, such as stream networks, field characterization, precision conservation practice siting, impoundment siting, and riparian assessment, each containing distinct features (e.g., stream reaches, grassed waterways, saturated buffers). Users can search for “ACPF Results” in ArcGIS Online within ArcGIS Pro’s Catalog pane and identify official layers by the owner “jobrecht@iastate.edu_ACPF_USHub.” These services or their individual layers can be added to a map by dragging and dropping from the search results. Features from these layers can be exported as new feature classes by selecting the desired data and using the “Export Features” function.

This document provides instructions for accessing and using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) Toolbox results as layers in ArcGIS Online. Five distinct web services are available, corresponding to the main ACPF output categories: Stream Network and Catchment Features, Field Characterization, Precision Conservation Practice Siting, Impoundment Siting, and Riparian Assessment. Each service contains specific feature types relevant to agricultural conservation planning, such as grassed waterways, bioreactors, WASCOBs, saturated buffers, and more. Users can search for "ACPF Results" (with quotes) in ArcGIS Online and identify official layers by the owner “jobrecht@iastate.edu_ACPF_USHub.” Once added to a map, these layers can be further customized in ArcGIS Online for symbology, popups, and display.

The document explains how the ACPF National Hub supports your efforts in agricultural conservation planning. It details the collaborative resources available, including a repository of core data, GIS tools, training, user support, and guidance for connecting with other ACPF users so you can access what’s needed at each stage of the planning process. The flowchart offers a practical step-by-step guide, from identifying stakeholders and gathering relevant data to running the ACPF tool, analyzing results, and integrating findings into your local or state watershed goals. Throughout, it highlights the Hub’s role in providing technical assistance, encouraging user networks, and ensuring that feedback and results are shared to improve conservation strategies continuously.

The ACPF team, along with our partners, developed a series of illustrations outlining how ACPF can be used in the NRCS Nine-Step Conservation Planning Process. The document outlines a phased approach to farm and field-scale conservation planning using the ACPF, integrating resource assessments with decision support and adaptive management. It is intended for watershed and conservation planners exploring how the ACPF could help them in their work.

The ACPF team, along with our partners, developed a series of illustrations outlining how ACPF can be used in the NRCS Nine-Step Conservation Planning Process. The document outlines a phased approach for implementing the ACPF in areawide conservation planning, emphasizing the use of geospatial analysis and mapping tools to identify critical areas and prioritize conservation practices. This guide is intended for watershed and conservation planners exploring how the ACPF could help them in their work.

New to the ACPF? This summary describes how the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) leverages high-resolution GIS and watershed data to identify targeted, site-specific conservation opportunities across agricultural landscapes. If you’re someone working on geospatial applications for agricultural conservation, this information provides concrete examples of how ACPF can enhance planning, stakeholder engagement, and funding proposals through scientifically valid, practical mapping tools. Additionally, it outlines both the GIS and watershed management skills necessary to maximize ACPF’s value.

This example explains how LimnoTech used the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) to develop watershed management plans for the Stony Creek and Wolf Creek watersheds near Detroit. By analyzing ACPF data, such as crop rotation, slope, and proximity to streams, they prioritized fields and best management practices to most effectively reduce nutrient pollution. The process involved collaborating with local conservation districts to verify results and identify willing landowners, leading to a targeted, actionable plan that might not have been possible without ACPF. This example highlights the value of ACPF for targeted conservation, recommending new users explore its features and consult the User’s Manual.

This example shows how the Wilson and Annis Creek Watershed Partnership in western Wisconsin used the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) to support collaborative watershed planning, focusing on protecting trout streams through targeted conservation practices. Analyzing with ACPF, along with tools like EVAAL and RUSLE2, helped identify critical areas and best management practices (BMPs), guide landowner engagement, and provide scientific support for funding proposals. Targeted mailers and community meetings encouraged stakeholder participation, resulting in the implementation of BMPs such as over 1,000 meters of grassed waterways and six kilometers of riparian corridor restoration. This example highlights the value of ACPF’s resources, planning, and engagement strategies for successful conservation.

This example describes how the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) was used in the Buckeye Creek Watershed in Southeast Iowa to support watershed planning, set conservation goals, and prioritize field outreach. By integrating ACPF outputs with other datasets such as Iowa State’s BMP Mapping Project and NRCS’s RUSLE, the team was able to identify high-priority acres for sediment and nutrient reduction efforts, focusing fieldwork and funding on the most impactful areas. The process included extensive ground-truthing by the watershed coordinator and contributed to the development of a twenty-year watershed management plan, as well as annual targets. Best practices included systematically documenting ACPF analysis steps to ensure repeatability and effective use of results for stakeholder engagement and funding justification.

This example describes how the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) was used in Indiana’s Beargrass Creek Watershed to support watershed planning, engage stakeholders, and guide conservation practices. ACPF maps were used as a visual tool to start conversations with producers about a range of potential conservation practices beyond cover crops, ultimately influencing which practices were implemented and where. The success of the project hinged on established trust and transparency with local producers, as well as clear communication about how ACPF decisions were made. Their key advice is to use ACPF to build relationships and use the maps as an educational tool to encourage watershed-scale thinking and collaborative decision-making.

This example describes how the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) was used in the Root River Watershed in southeast Minnesota as part of the Root River Field to Stream Partnership, which aimed to assess and improve the impact of agricultural practices on water quality. The approach combined multi-year baseline data collection, farmer-led engagement through personalized field walkovers, and the integration of ACPF maps to identify and prioritize high-risk runoff areas for targeted conservation actions. Key factors in the project’s success were strong stakeholder relationships, high farmer participation, and practical communication, such as concise, actionable walkover reports to encourage the adoption of conservation measures. The experience highlights the importance of relationship-building, prioritizing critical areas, and keeping recommendations supportive and straightforward to foster producer buy-in and effective watershed-scale agricultural conservation.

This example describes how Polk County, Iowa, used the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) to efficiently identify and prioritize sites for installing saturated buffers, aiming to accelerate nitrate reduction in local watersheds. By analyzing ACPF results, the county created a targeted outreach strategy. It adopted a fiscal agent model that removed financial and logistical barriers for landowners, resulting in a significant increase in participation and practice installation. The team found that while ACPF was an excellent tool for prioritizing candidate sites and initiating conversations, decisions on final locations were flexible and not strictly dictated by ACPF output. Key lessons included the value of a collaborative team approach, clear communication with landowners, and efficient, targeted conservation planning.

The paper discusses the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework’s conceptual foundation, its technical components, key applications, including watershed planning, stakeholder engagement, and research, and it describes several case studies from the Midwest. The paper emphasizes that ACPF outputs are meant to inform, not prescribe, conservation decisions, enabling locally tailored, stakeholder-driven solutions with practical implementation guidance. Finally, it highlights ongoing training, support resources, and future directions for ACPF expansion to more diverse agricultural landscapes and integration with economic and hydrological modeling tools.

The Southfork Watershed Alliance is a group of individuals who are working together to improve their understanding, and implementation of, conservation practices that can be used to improve water quality and soil health. The ACPF team created a story map was created to help the Southfork Watershed Alliance interpret APCF output maps of the South Fork watershed and determine how the solutions identified fit into their conservation goals.

The paper evaluates the Beargrass Creek Watershed Approach Project in Indiana, which aimed to improve water quality by reducing agricultural nutrient loss through a voluntary, locally-led, and science-based conservation method. The project was studied using social science techniques, including surveys, interviews, and observations that identified the motivations and obstacles faced by producers and agency staff in adopting conservation practices. While awareness of water quality issues and knowledge of conservation methods increased among producers, notable changes in attitudes or behaviors were not seen during the project's short timeframe, with financial incentives and time for implementation identified as key needs. The paper concludes that trust-building, education, personal engagement, and long-term local coordination are essential for successful watershed conservation, and recommends these as priorities for future efforts.

This document is a step-by-step guide for the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Financial and Nutrient Reduction Tool (ACPF FiNRT), a GIS-based tool designed to estimate costs and nitrate reduction outcomes for conservation scenarios in agricultural watersheds. The guide walks users through the setup in ArcGIS Pro, including downloading the toolbox and loading example watershed data. The workflow is divided into two core components: estimating field nitrogen requirements and analyzing the financial and nutrient load impacts of selected conservation best management practices (BMPs). It emphasizes integration with ACPF-generated BMP feature classes and ties results to Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy values for cost and effectiveness estimates. Outputs include spatial and tabular summaries that support scenario comparison, budgeting, and reporting for watershed conservation planning.

The paper introduces the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Financial and Nutrient Reduction Tool (ACPF FiNRT), an add-on to the ACPF that enables combined spatial and financial analysis of best management practice (BMP) scenarios for nutrient reduction in agricultural watersheds. The tool estimates total long-term annualized costs and nitrogen (N) loss reductions for multiple BMPs at the field and watershed scales, accounting for both direct costs and spatially explicit opportunity costs derived from crop productivity indices and land rent data in Iowa and Minnesota. Demonstration case studies show that targeted combinations of BMPs can achieve substantial N load reductions at much lower total and per-unit costs compared to non-targeted applications, such as universal cover crops. The ACPF FiNRT empowers planners and landowners to develop cost-effective, data-driven conservation plans tailored to local watershed priorities and available resources.

This article introduces Extension professionals to the latest conservation planning tools: the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) and the Financial and Nutrient Reduction Tool (FiNRT), which together utilize high-resolution spatial data to target and evaluate water quality best management practices (BMPs) in agricultural landscapes. The ACPF, built on ArcGIS, identifies areas of highest conservation need in small watersheds and suggests suitable in-field, edge-of-field, and riparian BMPs using detailed elevation, land use, and soil data. FiNRT complements ACPF by estimating potential nitrate-N reductions and providing cost-effectiveness analyses for various BMP scenarios, supporting financially informed conservation planning. The article explains how Extension can leverage these tools to facilitate more precise and cost-effective conservation with local partners, using their trusted relationships and local knowledge to ensure on-the-ground relevance and successful implementation. Ultimately, integrating ACPF and FiNRT empowers Extension and conservation professionals to focus efforts on areas with the greatest environmental benefit and supports stakeholder collaboration for long-term water quality improvements.

In this presentation, NRCS staff member Steven Hefner explains how the ACPF assists in identifying opportunities for implementing conservation practices across the landscape. He also discusses how the tool can be integrated into NRCS area-wide watershed assessments.

The paper compares actual implementation and potential placement of agricultural conservation practices (e.g., grassed waterways, ponds/wetlands, and water and sediment control basins (WASCOBs) in three Iowa HUC-12 watersheds using two GIS-based tools: the Iowa Best Management Practices Mapping Project (IBMP) and the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF). It finds that grassed waterways are widely implemented (at least 78% of the potential) across all three watersheds. At the same time, existing ponds are generally much smaller than the nutrient reduction wetlands sited by ACPF, reflecting a shift from field-scale to watershed-scale water quality solutions. WASCOB implementation was significant only in one watershed, driven by local preferences and funding, while ACPF analysis shows a high potential for greater adoption in all study areas. Overall, coupling the IBMP and ACPF provides a stronger basis for watershed planning by highlighting where current practices align with or diverge from modeled potential, supporting more precise and effective conservation investments.

This paper evaluates riparian buffer design classification across 32 Iowa headwater watersheds using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), focusing on three major land resource areas (MLRAs) and their landscape features. The study classifies riparian settings by elevation above stream and upslope contributing area to optimize buffer placement for intercepting runoff, treating nitrate in shallow groundwater, and protecting streambanks. Results show significant differences in riparian buffer opportunities among MLRA regions, with narrow buffers most common in MLRA 103 and 108C, and broader buffers effective for nitrate mitigation in MLRA 104, where low-lying riparian zones prevail. The approach demonstrates that multi-watershed spatial analysis can inform regional conservation planning by matching buffer designs to landscape-specific water quality improvement opportunities.

The paper explores farmer engagement in watershed-scale conservation planning using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF). Through in-depth interviews with 15 farmers across four Midwestern US watersheds, the study finds that most farmers are receptive to site-specific conservation targeting, especially when they maintain autonomy in decision-making and perceive tangible benefits, such as validation of local concerns and encouragement of watershed-level thinking. The research highlights that personalized maps and one-on-one engagement foster greater adoption of conservation practices, with maps valued as both visualization tools and catalysts for communication. Key recommendations include making conservation maps more interactive, focusing on clear and relevant information, providing flexibility in practice adoption, and prioritizing direct, relationship-based engagement with farmers.

This paper presents an integrated decision support framework (DSF) for field-scale placement of conservation practices in agricultural watersheds, demonstrated in the Plum Creek watershed, Minnesota. The DSF combines three GIS-based models: Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), Prioritize Target Measure Application (PTMApp), and Hydrological Simulation Program FORTRAN-Scenario Application Manager (HSPF-SAM). Used to optimize conservation practice siting by factoring in terrain, hydrology, cost-effectiveness, and farmer willingness. The approach leverages high-resolution lidar hydrologic data, advanced terrain and flow analysis, and incorporates farmer preferences using fuzzy logic, resulting in realistic and actionable conservation scenarios. Application of this framework resulted in the identification of 537 cost-effective practices, leading to an 8.5% total nitrogen reduction within a $250,000 budget. It demonstrated enhanced planning efficiency and stakeholder engagement at the field scale.

This study evaluates the potential of saturated riparian buffers (SRBs) to treat nitrate-laden tile drainage in 32 Iowa watersheds using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF). The results show that suitable SRB sites are common, with 30% to 70% of streambank lengths and 15% to 40% of watershed areas above suitable sites capable of diverting tile drainage for nitrate removal. There was no significant difference in SRB suitability among different Iowa landform regions, but SRBs are less applicable for headwater catchments, especially in the extensively tile-drained MLRA 103. The study concludes that SRBs have a substantial potential role in reducing nitrate losses from many tile-drained Midwestern watersheds, though alternative practices are needed to address headwater areas.

This paper evaluates the applicability of the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) for conservation planning in two Southern Piedmont (North Carolina) watersheds. The study compared ACPF-identified conservation practices to those recommended by local experts, finding that while ACPF primarily suggests practices designed for row crop landscapes (like contour buffer strips and grassed waterways), local experts emphasize soil health and pasture-related practices, the majority of which fall outside ACPF’s standard outputs. The results indicate that ACPF outputs do not fully align with local conservation priorities due to regional differences in land use, landscape structure, and management objectives; over 80% of the experts’ recommended practices were not included in ACPF’s scope. The authors suggest that adapting ACPF outputs through interpretation or “proxy” approaches can improve its relevance in non-Midwestern, pasture-dominated regions, although this requires significant local knowledge and additional geospatial data processing effort.

The document highlights that about 1 in 20 people (especially men) have some form of color vision deficiency, with red-green color blindness being the most common, which can make standard agricultural maps difficult to interpret. It emphasizes that USDA policy requires maps and materials to be accessible and provides examples of optimized map designs using high-contrast and alternative color schemes to enhance readability for those with color vision deficiencies. The fact sheet recommends tools like Vischeck to test maps for accessibility, ensuring farmers and producers can use them effectively regardless of their color perception.

This USDA NRCS factsheet explains how to create maps that are accessible to producers with color vision deficiencies, which affect roughly 1 in 20 people, most commonly red-green color blindness. It shows how standard NRCS maps can be hard for colorblind users to interpret and offers practical tips such as using high-contrast colors, symbols, patterns, easy-to-read fonts, and black-and-white legibility checks to improve accessibility. The document also presents before-and-after examples, simulated through the Vischeck tool, to show how adjusted maps become clearer for users with red-green and blue-yellow color deficiencies.

This paper evaluates the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) tool by analyzing the placement of conservation practices across 32 Iowa watersheds, considering both Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) and Agro-Hydrologic Landscapes (AHLs). The study quantifies spatial opportunities for four practices: controlled drainage, contour buffer strips, water and sediment control basins, and grassed waterways, demonstrating that siting frequencies differ significantly by landscape class and region. Results show that both MLRA and AHL classifications are helpful in distinguishing regional conservation opportunities, but that local planner judgment is still essential to adapt strategies to specific landscapes. Overall, integrating these landscape frameworks can enhance precision conservation planning and inform the development of effective regional conservation strategies.

An online illustration of the ACPF results of the Upper Iowa River watershed in Northeast Iowa. Click on the different layers of the map to see the different conservation opportunities as a water the the watershed resiliency plan.

The poster outlines enhancements to the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) for identifying optimal landscape sites for phosphorus removal structures, also known as "P-Traps," to address dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) losses in agricultural watersheds. The new geospatial tools in ACPF Version 7 enable users to locate and rank subsurface, blind inlet, and surface phosphorus removal structures across diverse farm landscapes, using high-resolution LiDAR, flow routing, soil data, and proximity to hydrologically active areas—ultimately helping land managers treat phosphorus runoff more effectively and prioritize conservation practice placement. These updates empower planners with actionable site-selection outputs and field-scale rankings, making conservation strategies for phosphorus management much more data-driven and precise.

This paper describes how the Iowa Soybean Association integrates farmer input with Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) results to create watershed plans that advance the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The process involves gathering local farmers' priorities through community sessions, using simple water quality modeling to set quantitative objectives, and leveraging ACPF tools to identify suitable locations for implementing conservation practices. A case study from the Headwaters Cedar Creek watershed illustrates how this approach leads to well-supported conceptual plans that blend local knowledge with spatial analysis to target critical conservation actions. The authors emphasize that involving farmers throughout planning, coupled with technical modeling and mapping, accelerates implementation, secures funding, and enhances long-term water quality improvements in Iowa.

This paper presents a framework for prioritizing agricultural conservation practice (CP) locations to improve water quality, integrating the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The proposed method uses multicriteria ranking by considering spatial sediment pollution hotspots (from SWAT), CP installation costs, and pollutant reduction effectiveness, to efficiently select CP placements from among the many suggested by ACPF. Case studies in two Pennsylvania watersheds (Conewago and Mahantango) demonstrate the approach for grassed waterways and water and sediment control basins, showing that combining criteria (yield and unit cost) leads to more cost-effective and targeted pollutant reductions than single criteria alone. The methodology is flexible and can be adapted to other pollutants, locations, and CP types, facilitating more efficient resource allocation in watershed planning. Ultimately, the study concludes that prioritizing conservation practices using this multicriteria framework can substantially enhance environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness compared to current first-come, first-served approaches.

This paper examines how the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), a GIS-based decision support tool, aids conservation professionals in precision placement of conservation practices across six watersheds in the US Midwest. Through in-depth interviews with 21 conservation professionals, the authors find that the ACPF promotes watershed-scale thinking, supports targeted conservation planning, and streamlines stakeholder engagement. The study identifies a set of strategies that enable successful producer engagement, such as pre-planning (“armchair conservation”), field validation, coordination, and the use of local influencers. The authors conclude that while decision support tools like ACPF are valuable for precision conservation, effective outcomes also depend on trust-building, local adaptation, and expediting the conservation delivery process.

A slide presentation providing an overview of the ManureMap Toolbox in action.  

The ManureMap ArcGIS Toolbox is a spatial modeling tool developed by USDA ARS and the ACPF National Hub to map and quantify the application of manure nutrients from animal feeding operations to cropland based on crop nutrient needs. It uses high‑resolution field boundary and land use data in the ACPF format, along with feedlot nutrient availability data, to simulate manure allocation either across a crop rotation or one year at a time (allowing tracking of residual nitrogen). The toolbox supports nitrogen‑based or phosphorus‑based application rates derived from nutrient removal or fertilizer recommendations. It provides detailed lookup tables, yield estimation tools, and outputs summarizing nutrient loads, application acreage, nutrient balances, and spatial distribution. Results are intended for regional nutrient budgeting and planning, not for replacing site‑specific nutrient management plans, and require careful interpretation to avoid misrepresentation of manure’s role in agricultural systems.

This paper presents a GIS-based, spatially explicit modeling approach to assess the contribution of livestock manure to Minnesota’s agricultural nitrogen (N) budget and the associated risk of nutrient over-application. By integrating detailed feedlot data, crop rotation records, and nitrogen application guidelines, the authors estimate manure-N generation, account for storage and application losses, and model field-level manure application using varying nitrogen rates and hauling distance scenarios. Results indicate that, under guideline-recommended rates, statewide manure alone seldom causes N over-application (<5% of fields), but combined manure and commercial fertilizer use consistently exceeds crop N requirements by 10–55% depending on rate assumptions. The study identifies spatial hotspots—such as central Minnesota—where the risk of localized over-application is particularly acute due to concentrated livestock production. The authors conclude that a more integrated approach to nitrogen management, which fully accounts for manure-N, is essential both for reducing environmental contamination and for realizing substantial fertilizer cost savings.

The paper by Tomer and Nelson (2020) demonstrates how measuring the landscape's capacity for water detention and wetland restoration can inform watershed planning goals and implementation strategies in agricultural regions. Using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), the authors identified and evaluated potential sites for water detention practices (like WASCOBs and wetlands) in three contrasting watersheds of the Yellow Medicine River basin in Minnesota, quantifying the storage potential and wetland creation opportunities. The study found that distributed, small-scale detention practices offer significant opportunities for flood mitigation and habitat creation, but the effectiveness and feasibility of implementation depend greatly on local landscape characteristics and the strategy for practice recruitment (targeted vs. open enrollment). The authors argue that precision siting data from tools like the ACPF can guide realistic watershed goals and support adaptive, locally-informed conservation planning at landscape scales.

The Minnesota Water Resources Center hosted an informational webinar on the ACPF and how the ACPF compares to other watershed planning tools commonly used in Minnesota like PTMapp and HSPF-SAM

This directory lists partners who can provide technical consulting services related to the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF). Organizations listed have acknowledged that they have staff trained in the technical aspects of the ACPF, can provide specific services related to the creation of new geodatabases when an ACPF core dataset is not available for download, and can run the ACPF toolbox in consultation with local partners. If you would like your organization or individual expertise added to this list, please get in touch with us at: acpfsupport@iastate.edu.

The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) Implementation Guide was developed to help the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) adopt the ACPF as a geospatial decision-support tool for watershed-scale agricultural conservation planning. The guide explains ACPF’s value in identifying site-specific conservation opportunities using high-resolution soils, land use, and terrain data, supporting precision conservation, watershed-based planning, stakeholder engagement, and efficient field visits. It outlines strategies for national and state-level dissemination through a proposed National Hub and State Centers, along with marketing guidance targeting NRCS leadership, field staff, and conservation partners. The document identifies enabling factors and hindering factors. Finally, it recommends training strategies, a coalition-building approach, integration with NRCS planning infrastructure (CD/CART), promotion of short-term wins, and long-term anchoring of ACPF adoption within NRCS and partner organizations.

This paper evaluates how digital elevation model (DEM) resolution and user-specified parameters influence the siting and density of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) toolbox in three physiographically distinct mid-Atlantic US catchments. Results show that DEM resolution has a significant impact on the density and spatial distribution of grassed waterways, while the placement of contour buffer strips (CBS) and water and sediment control basins (WASCOBs) is more influenced by landscape type than DEM resolution. The study finds that using discrete values for the stream power index (SPI) threshold in grassed waterway siting produces output more consistent with physical landscape variation than the standard deviation-based approach recommended in the toolbox. Optimal BMP siting requires careful attention to both input data choices (especially DEM resolution, with 2-meter DEMs recommended) and parameter selection, as these factors can cause substantial differences in outputs. The authors conclude that while ACPF tools are generally robust across regions, users should understand these sensitivities and use local knowledge to inform parameterization, especially when transferring workflows beyond the Midwest.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension, Wisconsin DNR, Wisconsin Land and Water and other partners hosted an overview webinar on the ACPF and how it can work within Wisconsin. The webinar also featured staff from the Outagamie County and Conservation Department who discussed their use of the ACPF and how it complements their use of the EVAAL toolset.

This paper evaluates the use of the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) in the eastern United States, using a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis. It finds that while ACPF’s geospatial tools can precisely identify conservation practice locations and expand planning options, there are challenges in adapting the toolbox to local crop types, existing conservation efforts, and regional hydrologic contexts. The authors emphasize that successful adoption depends on careful adaptation, local stakeholder engagement, and clear communication to ensure the outputs are relevant and effectively used.

This article argues that modern geospatial technologies, such as lidar-derived topography, remote sensing–based crop rotation mapping, and advanced soil surveys, can transform agricultural water quality management by mapping nutrient and sediment sources at the field scale. The authors critique decades-old “hotspot” concepts for nonpoint-source pollution (NPSP) control, finding that nutrient pollution, especially nitrogen in tile-drained Midwestern watersheds, is widespread and cannot be addressed solely by visually identified sites. Using the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), they propose integrating by-field nitrogen application estimates, hydrologic flow path mapping, and conservation practice siting tools to rank and target locations for the greatest nutrient and sediment reduction. They also outline methods for estimating nitrogen loss from cropping histories, applying conservation practices (e.g., bioreactors, saturated buffers), and extending similar targeting approaches to sediment and phosphorus using streambank erosion analysis and erosion risk mapping. Ultimately, they call for watershed-scale experiments and “conservation-citizen science” to refine and apply these tools, aiming to make NPSP sources definable, mappable, and more effectively managed.

The paper introduces a landscape approach called "riparian catchments" to connect upland agricultural management with riparian zone conservation for improved water quality and ecosystem health. It describes how the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) Version 3 toolbox partitions watersheds into manageable riparian segments using high-resolution soil, land use, and topographic data, facilitating precise prioritization and placement of conservation practices. The approach enables planners to integrate multiple conservation practices across flow paths, visualize hydrologic connectivity, and better target interventions such as riparian buffers and saturated buffers based on landscape-specific attributes and land use. Example applications demonstrate how this method enhances conservation planning by aligning existing and proposed practices, prioritizing nutrient reduction, and encouraging "watershed thinking" among stakeholders.

This report captures real-world feedback from Minnesota conservation professionals who applied the ACPF to watershed planning. The Water Resources Center at the University of Minnesota trained 39 GIS technicians and then conducted follow-up interviews on their experiences.