Resources

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 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 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 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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.