LOWER MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL VALLEY
REGIONAL STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP
April 6 – 7, 2006
Memphis, Tennessee
SYNTHESIS OF INFORMATION
Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Restoration Project
USDA Forest Service
April 2006
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
OPENING STATEMENTS AND PLENARY SESSION
SHARING WHAT WORKS (Round 1)
IF YOU HAD YOUR WISH…IMPORTANT ACTIONS (Round 2)
CONTINUING THE DIALOGUE
HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS PROVIDE BOTH GOODS AND SERVICES (Round 1)
ENSURING SUSTAINABILITY (Round 2)
GOOD BUSINESSES ARE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY AND ECOLOGY (Round
1)
IMPROVING THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE (Round 2)
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT SESSIONS
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: IMPROVING SCIENCE AND SCIENCE DELIVERY
FOR THE LMAV
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: EXPANDING PARTNERSHIPS AND
DEVELOPING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS THAT EXPEDITE
RESTORATION
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: IMPROVING CONSERVATION AND INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS
SYNOPSIS OF WORK GROUP FINDINGS AND PRESENTATIONS
MOVING FORWARD
CONTRIBUTORS TO LOWER MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL VALLEY REGIONAL
STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP
LOWER MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL VALLEY REGIONAL STAKEHOLDER
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANT LIST
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE PROGRAMS FOR PRIVATE LANDOWNERS IN THE
LOWER MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL VALLEY
RESTORATION OR WETLAND PROJECTS
2
INTRODUCTION
The Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (LMAV) is one of the most important ecosystems
on the North American continent, yet it is one of the most economically and ecologically
challenged. Many diverse groups in both the public and private sector have made
valuable contributions to the restoration of the LMAV ecosystem, yet a comprehensive,
strategic assessment and plan have not been formulated.
The Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Restoration
Project was organized to facilitate cooperative
activities involving the restoration of critical portions
of the LMAV to a more natural and better functioning
ecosystem.
On April 6 - 7, 2006, the USDA Forest Service hosted
the LMAV Regional Stakeholder Workshop, a working
meeting to discuss and develop strategy for restoring
the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. A diverse group
(73 participants representing 41 federal, state, and
tribal agencies, private businesses and nongovernmental organizations (NGO)) met to create a
common understanding of what incentives and
initiatives were working well, why various programs
were succeeding, and craft strategy to improve, accelerate, and make restoration
activities attractive to a larger group of private landowners. Specific goals for the
Workshop were to develop ways to restore bottomland hardwoods and riparian buffers,
identify gaps and overlaps in policy and programs, identify policy and program
implementation measures needed to expedite and better target restoration efforts, and
develop a list of potential demonstrations and demonstration areas.
Stated benefits of these goals include the afforestation of bottomland hardwoods and
riparian buffers to reduce effluents into streams and rivers, thereby reducing the hypoxic
zone in the Gulf of Mexico, while also restoring wildlife habitat and corridors, increasing
flood water storage capacity, reducing loss of life and property from storm events, and
reducing the burden on government agencies for flood protection and mitigation.
The following information is a synthesis and synopsis of the LMAV Workshop findings.
3
OPENING STATEMENTS AND PLENARY SESSION
Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Coordinator
Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Restoration Project, USDA Forest Service
The Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley is the third largest river basin the world (after the
Amazon and Congo River Basins). Large-scale river basin restoration is extremely
challenging in any event, but it is particularly so in the LMAV, where there are economic
and ecological challenges due to extensive human alterations. One of the key lessons
from large-scale basin restoration is the need to stay connected and coordinated, and this
is both within the LMAV, as well as in maintaining good connections with the upper
watershed.
What’s the role of the Forest Service? Maintaining healthy forests, including riparian
buffers, are vital to clean water and ecosystem services. The FS is involved in lots of
activities – habitat restoration, green infrastructure projects, restoration of riparian
areas, managing national forests, research on bottomland hardwoods, agroforestry
(buffer strips), and also farm-based forestry. We think we can do a lot more. During a
2004 field trip, participants indicated high interest in working more closely together, in
creating new and enduring partnerships.
What more can the Forest Service do? The key contributions are going to be through our
research, state and private forestry programs (outreach), and our partnerships with state
forestry and fish and game agencies; also, our close connections with NRCS.
The other thing we can do is stay true to our vision of cooperative conservation and
collaboration – working effectively with our many partners. The question for the Forest
Service is whether we can begin to model this behavior.
The general purposes for the meeting:
 Develop an understanding of current activities, strategies, and partnerships
focused on restoration of the LMAV ecosystems
 Identify actions that will improve and expedite results on the ground, including
policy, implementation strategies, and partnerships
 Strengthen and/or develop cooperative conservation demonstration projects to
illustrate emerging concepts and provide pilots and learning opportunities.
Charles Baxter, Project Leader
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Restoration means we’re going to be talking about change. And my premise is that we’re
going to have to change our business model. I’m associated with a partnership – the
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture – that is beginning to develop this new model.
The Joint Venture is a shared vision of bird conservation in the delta.
The LMAV is the nation’s floodplain. To the uninitiated, it looks like a flat and rather
homogeneous topography. But it is physiographically very diverse – with a very rich
biological community. Even with all the engineering work that’s been accomplished, the
4
valley is still subject to extensive flooding. However, four ecological services have been
extensively disrupted:




Habitat for wildlife, especially extensive bird species
Water quality – for people and communities, as well as the impact on fisheries
Flood storage
Carbon sequestration – one of N. America’s major carbon sinks/emitters
The current economic conditions are quite disturbing: Limited jobs and job skills, high
infant mortality rates (on par with statistics in many Third World countries),
housing/health care unattainable for many, industrial technology lags a decade behind,
but we have a rich literary history.
The initial European vision of the delta was one-dimensional, focused on agricultural
development, and it was ecologically and economically unsustainable. However, it
continues to be strongly supported by civic and political leadership. And it will remain
in place until it is replaced with another vision.
How can we contribute to affecting this change, toward achieving a new vision? Our
conservation paradigm is shifting from “resource management” toward “system
viability/sustainability.” Environmental problems, and their solutions, are increasingly
seen in a multi-scaled, interdisciplinary context. The target should be landscapes
capable of sustaining populations of Trust species, range-wide, at prescribed levels. As a
key consequence, partnerships must reflect not simply mutual interest, but a larger
vision of change that includes the following four elements of a collaborative conservation
business model:




Articulating a vision of measurable ecological outcomes
Communicating the social and economic consequences of ecological outcomes
Aligning programs in support of measurable ecological outcomes, and
Demonstrating the impacts of these programs in measurable ecological terms.
We’re getting closer to being able to establish measurable outcomes, e.g., ability to
delineate areas that are most sensitive to flooding, identifying critical habitat areas.
The sooner we can see the delta – its heterogeneity, richness – the sooner we can achieve
a new common vision and agenda for change.
John Shannon, State Forester
Arkansas State Forestry Commission
A vision for the delta:
 Significant (hydrological) restoration of the delta. But we’re not going to return
to 1491. We’re not going to tear down the levees; we can’t have conditions where
catastrophic floods are going to return. It would be great 100 years from now, if
every acre that can be intensively farmed can be – that we can become the food
5


and fiber and fuel basket of America. Every acre that isn’t suitable for agriculture
should be returned to forest.
I’d like to see farms and forests generate wealth for the delta. Real wealth and
prosperity.
I’d like to see people stay in the delta; and I’d like to see people come to the delta,
for tourism, hunting safaris, and again, generating wealth.
Restoration will only happen if landowners are supportive. There are two primary tools
for working with landowners:
1) Expert help (e.g., technical assistance). Every county has a graduate forester that
is employed to provide assistance; state game and fish agencies have staff to assist
farmers; and there are engineers that are great with water structures.
2) Financial assistance: there are more pots of money than I can identify. Two
worth mentioning are: 1) Conservation Reserve Program providing annual rental
payments, and 2) EQIP (NRCS) implementing best management practices.
What works?
1) Local infrastructure: County forester, technicians (forest rangers) in every county.
These people are neighbors; they live in your community and understand local needs.
2) Forest land enhancement programs (cost share): Lots of flexibility for the states.
We’ll help fund virtually anything that makes sense. One-stop shopping. Forest
rangers will meet with landowners, discuss their needs, then calls our state forestry
office and gives them an estimate-the financial commitment is made by the afternoon.
We could spend all of our money in one county; it’s so useful and so needed.
3) Partnerships work. The prescribed burning requirements exceeded our ability to
deliver so we got together with TNC and jointly conducted training, which resulted
in more certified prescribed burners and the ability to get this done. Arkansas
Forestry Commission was ineffective working with black landowners, so we joined
with RC&D people to find ways to build trust. Working with RC&D, we went into
black churches in rural Arkansas. The result was a doubling of landowners we
worked with in 2005, up from the 150 landowners from 2004.
What doesn’t work?
1) Inadequate incentives: We haven’t been successful in moving farmers away from
growing economical crops.
2) Underestimating the sophistication of farm or forest landowners: Condescension
is failure. Every time I hear our technicians saying “We need to educate the
landowners” I want to strangle them.
3) Breaking promises to landowners – i.e., don’t make promises you can’t keep.
Two general potential ways to affect change:
1) Encouraging a land ethic, an Aldo Leopold type of approach
2) Our approaches have to make financial sense. Farmers and landowners aren’t
going to do anything that doesn’t lead to tangible benefits.
6
Ricardo Bayon, Managing Director
Ecosystem Marketplace
What do we mean by ecosystem services? Provisioning - food, fiber, genetic resources
biochemicals, fresh water; cultural services, e.g., spiritual and religious values; regulating
services - air quality, water, erosion, water purification. It gives us what we take for
granted every day - air, water, soil, and other aspects of the natural environment. They
don’t appear to be part of the economic system, and therefore we haven’t invested in
them adequately. So the question becomes, “How do we incorporate this into the
economic system?”
For example, bees in Costa Rica represent a US$62,000 value for coffee farmers, based on
their role in pollination, pest control, and other support services.
How can we internalize environmental services, so they are part of our economic
considerations? By markets, I mean regular meetings of buyers and sellers for exchanging
goods and services. To enable payment, property rights are essential. Allocating and
enforcing those property rights is an essential role of government.
The three ecosystems markets currently include carbon, water, and biodiversity.
The Kyoto Protocol and European Emissions Trading created a sustained market for
carbon, which now translates to a total of around $11.3 billion dollars. It is essentially a
cap-and-trade market. It has grown extremely rapidly in the last several years. Most of
the key energy traders are involved, as well as hedge funds, and even major banks; it is
becoming a recognized market for investment and trade. Some have estimated that CO2
will become the world’s largest commodity market (worth $150 to $250 Billion after
2008). There are several carbon markets, each with different characteristics, prices,
rules, etc. The biggest market is the EU emissions trading market; the Precompliance/CDM (based on Kyoto) is the second largest. In the US we have the Chicago
climate exchange, which is still relatively small (primarily because it’s still voluntary).
The US is behind in terms of government, regulated markets, but we may see explosive
growth once the US enters the market. The northeastern states have agreed on a capand-trade market and California and the Pacific Northwest are not going to be far
behind. We may see the emergence of regional markets throughout the US and this will
put pressure on a national level for the federal government to create a trading scheme.
Given the growing interest in climate change, we’re in sort of a “perfect storm” scenario; I
think we’re going to see explosive growth in this market in the coming years.
In terms of water, there’s going to be growing interest in both quantity and quality.
Quality will likely be the first priority, because the science on this is much clearer and
broadly agreed upon. Nutrient (pollution) trading is essentially a cap-and-trade market
applied to watersheds. Those who pollute more buy from those who pollute less, and
there are dozens of examples of this in the US. Unlike CO2, it’s not that easily
commoditized, and it’s not particularly global. The markets are more segmented,
regional, but not necessarily small (e.g., Mississippi River, Chesapeake Bay). Other
7
water markets may include flood control, paying for upstream watershed protection,
salinity, etc.
Biodiversity is an interesting potential market, but may be one of the toughest to crack.
It is not easily commoditized, and we don’t even have a common definition, or
understanding of what biodiversity means. But there is movement, and particularly here
in the US. We call it “wetland mitigation banking,” or “conservation banking.” There
are voluntary biodiversity offsets, and also government payments for biodiversity.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, outlines a classification of wetlands and permits for
mitigation, which we estimate is now worth about a billion dollars annually. New
regulations will make mitigation banking more competitive than in the past.
Conservation banking is the same principle applied to species; if you impact a species
here, you can get credits elsewhere. There are 70 banks on species conservation, most of
these in California, which has done a good job of regulating the taking of species. Species
that are considered threatened or endangered can elevate land prices to more than
$100,000/acre. This is another market that is poised for growth. In developing countries,
voluntary biodiversity offsets seem to have lots of promise. Companies voluntarily offer
to offset their costs and impacts to biodiversity.
We have to move to a place where we truly value environmental benefits and services.
Some of the key lessons to keep in mind are:




Key role of government is setting limits, allocating, enforcing, and monitoring
property rights, and to let market supply and demand set prices
The allocation of rights is one of the hardest things; do you give rights away
(grandfather?) or distribute equitably?
For these markets to develop, there is going to be a need for an emphasis on trust
Information is very important; knowing who has the credit, where has it gone,
registries, certification, verification, auctions, and bringing together buyers and
sellers, etc.
Ecosystem Marketplace provides information on prices and policies that are driving the
markets, e.g., who’s buying and who’s selling. We have news, updated daily, with
features of interest.
Lisa Stocker, Director of Public Affairs
Potlatch Corporation
Potlatch Corporation manages forestlands and produces wood, tissue, and paper board
products in three different regions of the country. In Arkansas, we have approximately
900 employees, with two pine lumber mills, a pulp and paperboard mill near McGehee,
and we manage about 475,000 acres. About 98% of the land is leased for hunting, fishing,
and recreation, with about 11,000 customers a year. We manage our lands intensively,
and have worked in partnership with groups like The Nature Conservancy, to conduct
thinnings (intermediate, pre-commercial) and prescribed burns.
8
The metrics we use to better understand our resources, at a landscape-scale, are fairly
well developed. We develop 30- and 50-year management plans, projecting how the
landscape will change. We have a comprehensive data base. We work with groups like
NatureServe to develop these monitoring tools. We’ve worked a lot with FWS to
develop a habitat conservation plan, e.g., for the Red Cockaded Woodpecker. We’re
working with the Audubon Society, AR, to do an inventory of birds that’s well
documented on our ownership with GIS overlays. We have conservation easements, and
have developed a joint management plan for these lands with The Nature Conservancy.
With TNC, we are also doing an in-depth study assessing the economic and
conservation values of the land. We have a “Classroom in the Forest” where a lot of
teachers and students come through our forest to learn about aspects of forest
management, water quality, habitat protection, etc. We have a Community Advisory
Council, made up of representatives from the communities where we’re located – local
residents, elected officials, business owners, academics. They give us feedback on how
we can improve our environmental performance, and help us develop our policies and
make key management recommendations that can benefit local communities.
We have a number of certifications on our forestlands, and they’re consistent with the
values that are talked about in our mission statement. It’s a systematic way for us to stay
true to those values. Obviously, we are a business, and have to return dividends to our
shareholders; but we balance this with our commitments to environmental management
approach, based on ISO 14001 standards. This is an international standard that provides
structure to our system, and we have been 3rd party certified to this standard since 2002.
Potlatch’s management practices are certified to the Forest Stewardship Council and
Sustainable Forestry Initiative standards.
In the news, you can see that the business environment is changing every day for the
forest products industry. The landownership profile in the US is changing quite rapidly,
with an increasing fragmentation of ownership. Our real estate investment trust is
working to fully monetize timber and related forest values, and our commitment to
sustainable forestry is a key part of that. We support and encourage “market based”
conservation.
Partnership and collaboration are an important part of our approach, and we have a wide
array of partnerships in Arkansas – TNC, AR Game and Fish and the State Forestry
Commission, the Rainforest Alliance, the USDA Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Audubon Arkansas and the Arkansas Wildlife Federation, among many others.
Building and creating these relationships is a key to business success and provides
information and credibility for our business model.
We’re also a member of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance, an industry-led
partnership that is a collaborative, independently funded, partnership to encourage joint
research, development, and deployment of new technologies (e.g., biomass utilization,
hemicellulose extraction, and black liquor). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages
the annual production of 1 billion gallons per year of biofuels from cellulosic sources.
With the assistance of Winrock International, the University of Arkansas at Monticello,
and the Arkansas Department of Economic Development, we are conducting a feasibility
9
study at our Cypress Bend pulp and paperboard mill to assess the viability of integrating
the gasification of cellulose into the manufacturing process. This would provide energy
for the mill process and provide biofuels from agricultural and forest residues. Although
we have considerable experience in processing forest products, we have very limited
expertise in making bio-fuels. So partnerships are critical for us to expand our ability to
enter this emerging new market. Many partners are involved in this work, and that’s
what it’s going to take for it to be successful.
SHARING WHAT WORKS (Round 1)
Participants were initially divided into nine groups comprised of approximately eight
people each, reflecting diverse organizations (i.e., federal, state, NGO, business, etc).
Each group reflected on activities their organizations were involved in that result in
ecosystem restoration. Furthermore, participants discussed the activity, what groups
the activity targeted, commonalities between the activities and what things contribute
to the success of the activity.
Activities/Programs
Participants cited existing government programs as very useful. These programs are
flexible enough in many cases to meet diverse goals like water quality, erosion control,
and wildlife. Farm bill conservation programs, EPA Funds (and EPA 319), FS grants, and
co-operative deals with federal agencies utilizing federal conservation funds (LWCF,
MBCC, and Forest Legacy) were mentioned. USDA programs like CRP, CREP, WHIP,
WRP, and EQIP were especially useful for landowners. The ACE programs under the
Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) like 1135 Wetland Restoration and 206 Aquatic
Restoration require a 35% match and require the partner to assume maintenance, which
tends to limit these programs to states and large organizations. Activities and programs
targeting watershed planning, reforestation, carbon planting, technical assistance (e.g.,
expert help in conservation planning, BMP implementation, reforestation planning and
seedlings), sustainable management and utilization, public-private connections, black
bear migration, and wetland mitigation were specifically mentioned. Tax incentives and
partnerships (public/private/NGO) can allow for greater flexibility and effectiveness.
Target Audiences and Why These Programs Work Well
The above programs target private landowners (including small and minority
landowners), farmers, sportsmen, private investors (including industry), public at large,
public agencies, non-governmental organizations, and, in some cases, promote
collaborative partnerships.
Partnerships are built between private landowners and biologists providing technical
assistance to landowners (e.g., programs on wetland restoration). This system works to
help get all the information needed to take advantage of these programs to the
landowner.
Discussion included the course of action used to bring stakeholders together in the
Bitterroot Valley. A collaborative process with federal, state, NGOs, tribes, and
landowners was used, resulting in developed trust, a common set of goals, and an
10
understanding of barriers to success. The process took five years but attracted outside
funds to bring science based approach to meeting goals.
The development of science-based silvicultural systems for afforestation of former
agricultural lands, one option for forest restoration in the LMAV, is targeted at private
and public landowners and managers. It works well because it fosters rapid forest
establishment on site, which leads to increased usage by wildlife, and multiple economic
options for landowners.
The science-based predictions behind coastal restoration and model of ecological drivers
for wetland restoration are used by state and federal governments. Restoration and
creation of wetlands for wildlife provides incentives for economic development and ecotourism.
The use of land management databases and decision support models by partnership
groups to help them agree on common goals for restoration works well because a shared
vision (desired future conditions) leads to added partnerships and investments (e.g., in
afforestation for carbon credits)
The reasons programs work well revolve around leadership, partnership and assistance.
Leadership is needed at all levels and sectors, and especially local levels. Successful
programs are ones having the flexibility to work with diverse needs of landowners, the
ability to combine with multiple programs (competition and funding availability)
providing assistance such as rental payments and guaranteed funding, and encourage
constituency building by adding value back to the communities.
Common Themes
The theme/commonality that connects these activities and programs is an understanding
that ecosystem restoration in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley is impossible
without the widespread, voluntary participation of private landowners. Easy access by
landowners to programs with program specifics addressing the needs of the client,
including adequate funding levels, technical assistance, science sharing and sciencebased decision making (including a clear vision and metrics for measuring progress), and
continuous and seamless, consistent implementation are inherent to program/landowner
success. The flexibility and adaptation of programs and working with landowners by
addressing their needs, having a good representation of stakeholder interest, ensuring an
understanding by stakeholders of the reasons for and multiple benefits of the programs,
encouraging partnerships with commonly agreed upon restoration goals that make
economic sense and lead to economic development, provides collaboration, trust, and
community involvement.
Inherent to the success of these programs/landowners is the ease and accessibility to the
programs. In other words, signing up should be easy and continuous and be available
where landowners are located. Targeted efforts for the programs include pilot projects
and sound and capable technical delivery systems (enough boots on the ground), as well
as good communication, coordination and delivery of programs, and sound incentives for
landowners/participants. Specifics include rapid watershed assessment and maximizing
benefits to the landowners.
11
IF YOU HAD YOUR WISH….IMPORTANT ACTIONS (Round 2)
Participants dispersed to different tables to share and gain information with other
people while the table host remained to share the collective knowledge from Round 1.
Participants used the previous discussion to build on new ideas of what important
actions were needed to create change to meet ecosystem restoration goals, and
specifically, how to make these actions a reality.
Suggested Action:
Collaboration should be the foundation for conservation and restoration work. Good
representation of all stakeholders is critical, and it must begin at the local level, with
landowners and local leaders within small watersheds. At the same time, there must be
connectivity to larger scales, and to the ecosystem as a whole. Representation should be
sought for agencies (federal, state, and local), local landowners and residents, elected
officials, business/industry, non-profit groups, and academics.
Action to Reality:
Encourage the development of multi-stakeholder organizations at local watershed levels
throughout the basin. Work to develop a broadly representative organization (not
government-led or run) that can address issues at the LMAV scale. Look at models of
watershed and ecosystem collaborative groups that can provide lessons and guidance for
work within the LMAV. Provide incentives and sustained funding for these groups,
including regular opportunities for capacity- or skill-building, exchange, and
coordination among groups and across scales.
Suggested Action:
A national strategic plan for environmental goals for LMAV should be developed and
collaboratively implemented. A national policy for carbon credit markets, public/private
partnerships for the development of a market-driven economy, and hydrology and levee
system issues (ACE) should be included. Long-term consistent policies will foster trust
within and between agencies and other partners and are useful to avoid duplication of
effort.
Action to Reality:
1) Develop a national sense of purpose and national dialogue to focus on restoration.
Focus needs to accomplish political and financial backing, and secure local, grass roots
support. Improved communication and a holistic spatial approach which integrates rural
and urban components are needed to integrate restoration activities across programs,
agencies, and people. Leaders, communities, landowners, natural resource professionals,
and planners need to be informed and educated (workshops) about tradeoffs and
context of, and alternatives to, restoration issues. Dialogue must include mitigating the
fear that restoration/conservation will lead to control and restriction of private land.
Environmental justice issues need to be addressed and confirm that poor people need
livable and ecologically sound environments. Look at big picture – the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley is one of several major ecosystems needing to be restored, and human
activities must be integrated into the restoration plan. Transportation, utilities,
ecosystem functions and other factors need to be examined together.
12
2) Build partnerships and have greater collaboration. Reduce agency and other turf wars,
build trust, continue to identify commonalities toward reaching conservation goals,
work together to resolve differences to work toward common goals (e.g., Farm Bill),
work within local networks to foster cohesiveness and better implementation in efforts
(e.g., common agreement on the best use of a site toward forest restoration), increase
communication/collaboration through the use of MOUs and build political support for
partnership/collaboration effort. Also, include detailers of all types into agencies for
mutual learning; each agency should be willing or required to send detailers to other
agencies if they have the same or similar programs to understand how those programs
are administered, etc. (e.g., a CRP person from FSA goes to the FS). Engage ACE and
perhaps address conservation mission particularly the hydrologic restoration piece in
Water Resources Development Authority (ACE’s authorizing legislation up for
reauthorization in the near future).
Suggested Action:
Proactive Community Based Futuring should take place. Being proactive before a crisis
occurs avoids mandatory regulations and allows things like best management guideline
to get the job done. An example is the migration of furniture industry from Mississippi.
As soon as communities recognize shrinking employment, they must work together with
planners, community leaders, resource professionals, and others to sketch out a set of
future, varied options for an economically and environmentally sustainable future.
These communities are also better positioned to negotiate their future, such as insisting
on a zero-runoff parking lot or green space retention in a new development.
Action to Reality:
Create strong local leadership/collaboration to generate local support and involve local
legislators. Develop and educate local leaders and network to reach environmental goals.
Suggested Action:
Simplify steps individuals must take to understand options and take advantage of
programs and collaborative opportunities, and reduce regulatory complexity. Streamline
the federal process, (e.g., fewer programs with greater program flexibility and less
duplication, reduce paperwork). Create a central data source with “one-stop shopping”
for assistance to landowners. Remove levels of bureaucracy within and between
agencies and organizations so programs can get implemented more efficiently and don’t
compete with each other. Increase cooperation across organizations by using the best
expert for the task no matter the organization. Develop private sector for technical
assistance delivery. Improve systems for targeting and coordinating programs, i.e. use
common science and more integrated criteria to evaluate and prioritize programs in a
spatial context.
Suggested Action:
Improve the economics of restoration. Increase knowledge and societal acceptance of
the benefits of restoration. Better align federal funding for Farm Bill programs to allow
landowners to more efficiently implement conservation programs including more
effective cost share leverage. Develop agreements on how to “filter” data and data layers
to meet stated goals to gain the greatest economic return for restoration funding. Federal
13
support for both immediate (emergency) and long-term restoration needs is a critical
element of success for ecosystem conservation and restoration. However, incentives
must be created for the extensive private investment that is critical to success because
agency funding (and regulatory support) will be insufficient in the long run.
Action to Reality:
1) Redesign public and private incentives. Eliminate disincentives (create incentives) for
private investments, e.g., encourage the creation/development of carbon, water quality,
and biodiversity markets. Encourage/develop federal, state, and local policies that
promote private investment and provide the regulatory framework to build trust for
targeted, long-term investment in environmentally sustainable local development. Target
public funding for strategic initiatives, including support for local collaborative groups,
information and outreach, and investment in science and research.
2) Significant congressional contacts, requiring significant involvement at the local level
must be made to educate members about needs and opportunities. Citizens must work
to get the reauthorized farm bill to incorporate principles for the top priority items.
Appreciating the reality of the federal budget deficit, this will require making difficult
budgetary decisions. Specific program recommendations include eliminating funding for
Title I of the Farm Bill (Conservation Security Programs) and reducing funding to the
Commodity Credit Corporation and using those dollars to fund the rest of the Farm Bill.
Currently a 25% limit exists in CRP; it was suggested that this cap be refocused to take
into consideration the 4w/ 5w soil types. WRP appraisal formula changes currently
pose considerable risk to the program as they could result in lower landowner
enrollment in the program because of a reduction in incentives previously offered.
Suggested Action:
Value and monetize ecosystem services through a viable market that would financially
support restoration activities. Provide public incentives and develop or expand private
incentives to be complimentary (or at least not contradictory) and ensure we “keep good
farms farming”. Keep acknowledging that carbon sequestration may be important in the
future while also allowing farmers and woodlot owners to be compensated for providing
ecosystem services as markets develop.
Action to Reality:
Strong organization leadership is needed to generate local support and help inform
opinion leaders and decision-makers. A non-governmental organization or a
philanthropic organization was recommended to take the lead (e.g., The Nature
Conservancy, McKnight Foundation).
Suggested Action:
Provide sufficient and expert technical assistance. Quality work on the ground provides
positive economic returns to landowners. Effectively approaching/convincing farmers to
implement BMPs and other systems for improving water quality, and the use of new soil
maps to identify the highest priority lands for protection/ restoration is required. Expand
or develop expert advice (technical assistance) for private landowners through
partnerships as federal capacity decreases.
14
Action to Reality:
1) Improve technology exchange and deliverability. Improve mechanisms of technology
transfer between agencies, and techniques for monitoring. Improve technology tools for
holistic view of ecosystem and improve the process for technology exchanges and getting
information to the field.
2) Target technical and financial resources to specific geographic areas to get the most
for our collective money. Host a LMAV trade show (not plenary) to showcase and
exhibit what all agencies are doing. Have work groups select high priority areas for
which agencies should focus efforts and funds. Involve stakeholders in planning and
creation of large or small scale demonstration sites.
Suggested Action:
Solid science is needed to characterize the current state of the ecological and economic
systems, to provide analysis of priority needs, and to monitor changes to the system to
ensure adaptive management approaches are used in developing policies and in making
decisions. Bring more science to bear on evaluating targeted conservation efforts on the
hydrologic and flood plain functions liked reducing flooding—expect ACE, BRD, and
NRCS to assist in this effort.
Action to Reality:
Improve information. Develop a common, accessible system of information gathering
that is consistent in terms of vocabulary and methodological protocols across agencies
and jurisdictions. Develop a clearinghouse for information that is a one-stop. Find
immediate funding for GIS and hydrographic analysis and sustained funding for staffing
resources.
CONTINUING THE DIALOGUE
Following the reports about what works, why and how to improve results, the
participants selected one of two topics to explore. The first dealt with how to make the
provision of ecosystem services profitable and attractive for landowners. The second
dealt with how to develop and/or stimulate business opportunities that would result in
healthy environments. The following are the combined results of five tables working on
ecosystem services (healthy ecosystems) and three tables working on business
opportunities (good businesses).
HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS PROVIDE BOTH GOODS AND SERVICES
(Round 1)
Participants were asked to think about the kinds of ecosystem services that resulted
from restored ecosystems and riparian buffers, and the commonly shared benefits of
restoration of the LMAV ecosystems. Discussion focused on how the producers of these
benefits are rewarded for their stewardship, what incentives/inducements are in place to
ensure the benefits are long-term, and examples of ecosystem restoration resulting in
improved income for the provider of ecosystem services.
15
Commonly Shared Benefits Identified
The commonly shared benefits of restoration are categorized as environmental,
economic, and social, with many benefits overlapping. The foremost benefit is water.
Environmental benefits include water (quality, quantity, and storage), increased filtering
of nutrients and sediment from water (increased fish health and population), wildlife
and biodiverse wildlife habitat for resident and migratory species (habitat that is
abundant and diverse), air quality, healthy forests (especially bottomland hardwood
forests).
Economic benefits include wood products, carbon storage, leases for
hunting/trapping/fishing, ecotourism, food and fiber production, improved quality of life
through improved socio-economic conditions and economic stability.
Social benefits include recreation, tourism (including eco-tourism), hunting, fishing,
legacy, hydrologic storage and flood and erosion mitigation, reduced risk of “natural”
hazards (e.g., storm surge protection), regulations on air and water quality (e.g.,
discharge limits, wetlands “no net loss” policy), energy benefits, noise and pollution
reductions (from tree planting) and aesthetics.
Producer Benefits And Incentives For Long Term Benefits Identified
The adage “If it pays, it stays” was expressed. Benefits are realized from funding by state,
federal or private entities in the form of guaranteed payments or cost share incentives for
sustainable practices (e.g., mortgage/rental payments), tax incentives (e.g., conservation
easements, conservation mitigation banking, tax credits, and carbon sequestration
market benefits), regulations, price supports, flood easements and right of way
payments. Mitigation banking is controversial because of the destruction of one for the
other.
Producers and landowners benefit from the above as well as from revenue from sale of
hunting/trapping rights and payments for leases and timber revenue/wood products,
personal satisfaction and pride. The community gains from ecotourism revenue (e.g.,
Ivory-billed woodpecker on town sign) and community pride. The forest industry gains
through good publicity and increased timber supply. All of these benefits help to
improve the economic base of the individual, community and region.
Any activity that includes tree planting will provide benefits that are long term. The sale
of carbon credits is an incentive for a producer to enter into a long term contract.
Incentives include easement payments (WRP, forest legacy, conservation); the purchase
of a conservation easement can be for finite duration or perpetual. Depending on the
definition of long term, CRP is an incentive for a long term (15 year) agreement to grow
hardwoods. The Ivory Billed Woodpecker Conservation Reserve Enhancement program
is a good example of an incentive adequate to ensure that the benefits are long term.
Other incentives include family legacy, social pressures, the desire for continued,
increased or new revenue, (e.g., hunting and timber revenue, transition of marginal
cropland to sustainable use timberland) and energy incentives from reduced bill costs.
16
Also, the connectivity restoration of lowlands with uplands provides longer benefits.
INCENTIVES NEED TO BE EXPANDED AND IMPROVED.
Ecosystem Restoration For Improved Income
The implementation of any conservation program that includes rental payments often
increases income, particularly if the land was not highly productive and/or if crop prices
were low. Farm Bill conservation programs like WRC, CRP, and EQIP can help. Also,
timber sales, fishing and hunting leases, recreation rights, carbon sequestration and
mitigation banking improve income.
Diversification of income sources can reduce financial risk. Wetland restoration can
increase property value ("Natural Resource Conservation Service, Wetland Reserve
Program: Compensation for Easements", GAO Audit Report No. 10099-3-SF, August,
2005, Washington, DC), ecosystem restoration can improve ecotourism revenue, and
hydro improvements help fisheries. “Mud for mud” exchange involves water companies
making improvements on landowner property in exchange for a place to put sludge.
Federal, state and local taxation policies can result in more spendable income for those
who restore lands. For example, in Arkansas, a land use change from row crop to forest
will result in a reduced real property tax liability. Other examples include biofuel
projects in Africa and Asia (driven by Kyoto Protocol), reforestation to create biofuels
(e.g., eucalyptus plantations) and possible cottonwood/oak in the LMAV.
ENSURING SUSTAINABILITY (Round 2)
Participants then discussed what would be needed to make it profitable for landowners
to produce a suite of ecosystem services that are needed by society, and what would be
important recommendations to make to political leaders, organizations, and
stakeholders.
Suggested Action
Provide help to local communities to enable them to develop a shared set of ecosystem
goals which could include ecotourism, hunting/fishing/birding opportunities, restoring
fisheries, helping small landowners obtain green certification, etc. The investment
market needs to be involved in the suite in ecosystem services: carbon sequestration,
wetlands mitigation, and the generation of biofuels; develop niche or regional markets
(certified wood, eco-tourism). Get economic development districts to focus on
conservation goals and get regional councils involved in data collection and planning to
support implementation of actions that result in increasing ecosystem service
production.
Suggested Action
Provide baseline valuation of ecosystem services and possible funding sources, e.g., who
produces them and who benefits from them (localized taxing could be used for possible
funding source) needs to be developed. General awareness of what the services provide
and what they cost when they are lost needs to be created. Overall education to the
public about the benefits of ecosystem services needs to take place. In sum, landowners
will become involved in ecosystem services provision if it makes economic sense.
17
Suggested Action
Employ state or federal government regulations to ensure buyers for different services
(e.g., adding caps).
Suggested Action
Add tax benefits and remove tax disincentives; remove crop subsidies and make
incentive for conservation; create a more balanced, simple and convenient taxation
system; provide tax credits (if there are no markets, e.g., Arkansas has state tax credits
for water storage); provide direct payments (e.g., CRP rental payments).
Suggested Action
Provide a user-friendly, comprehensive, interactive web site that is accessible and
intelligible to landowners (local access, one-stop shopping for assistance) that keeps
people informed of (changing) available information.
Suggested Action
Have and keep good science behind the numbers with what to do, where to do it, how to
do it and quantifiable results; communicate the science to partnership
Recommendations To Political Leaders
The following list reflects recommendations to agency and political leaders which the
groups felt would result in appropriate restoration activities as well as keep good
farmlands in production agriculture.








Provide financial incentives by creating good ecosystem service markets,
including regional/niche markets and creating a balanced taxation system
(eliminating tax disincentives, providing tax credits).
Redirect subsidies to conservation (not asking for new money, just asking to shift
it around).
Change the tax structure to give incentives for landowners who are certified good
stewards. (Exempt conservation cost-share payments as taxable income, e.g,
cost-share payments received through CRP, WHIP, and EQIP are seen as taxable
income by IRS.)
Provide greater incentives to not convert existing, viable forests and buffers to
agricultural and other lands.
Emphasize the value for leaving environmental services for future generations.
Trust existing markets to work; cap and trade system for nitrogen, carbon and
sediment.
Until incentives become entirely market driven, the federal government should
provide incentives to develop markets and get industry involved. As an example,
incentives are needed to kick-off the biofuels industry in the lower Mississippi
River Delta.
Consolidate and simplify federal conservation incentive programs; make it simple
and provide local access and “one-stop shopping”.
18






Select a federal program, fund it adequately, and sustain the program for the long
haul. SIP, FLEP, ACP, and FIP all disappeared or were unfunded after state
forestry agencies invested untold thousands of hours developing the work.
Include a funded monitoring program following established standards and
practices for ecosystem restoration.
Provide legislation for a direct funding source for ecosystem services. A taxation
of products to provide funds to purchase services could be created and used.
Increase funding for science. There are holes in basic knowledge about large
watershed dynamics that need to be filled and we need to know if we are actually
getting the benefits we think we are getting from restoration activities and
programs.
Provide good reliable, science information from a trusted source via good,
accessible web sites with local access, and “one-stop shopping”.
Create partnerships among federal and state agencies; politicians should assist in
creating partnerships and reducing turf wars.
GOOD BUSINESSES ARE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY AND ECOLOGY (Round
1)
In this session, participants discussed business practices and programs which promote
healthy ecosystems and how these businesses are rewarded for good internal
conservation practices and for providing incentives to their supplier, etc., to conserve
and restore ecosystems. Examples of conservation organizations partnering with
business interests to create ecosystem services and restoration activities were discussed.
Discussion included the need to understand what motivates companies to get them to
partner. Public/corporate image, strategic positioning in the marketplace, employee
pride (company is more productive), and integration of a company into the community
with employees/customers were mentioned.
Industries present in the Lower Mississippi region include transportation, wildlife,
chemical, oil/ gas, gaming, agro/ biomass, timber, energy, fisheries.
Businesses are rewarded financially for good environmental policies and actions, e.g.,
people buy their products (consumers purchasing certified lumber from Home Depot
and Lowe’s); public perception benefit, i.e. corporations are seen as good stewards of the
land, which pays dividends in terms of public relations; benefits from the shared risks for
developing new technology via government incentives from state and fed government
and keeping ahead of regulators through voluntary actions (e.g., Potlatch’s Cypress Bend
biorefinery).
Examples of entities working toward improving ecosystem services are 1) sportsmen, 2)
tourism, and 3) mitigation managers. Examples of business practices include carbon
credits that lead to increased tree planting; green certification (SFI, FSC); land set asides
to protect unique ecosystems and species; BMPs and SMZs in forestry and agric.
Specific partnership examples include:
19
1. Cypress bend refinery with its many partners. This leads to more trees planted in
the region for use as biofuel feedstock, which creates jobs
2. Companies like Kellogg, Ford, and Coke have supported environmental programs
for much of their history.
3. Wildlife Habitat Council works with local industries to build conservation on
their site that is then available for use by their employees who make up the local
community.
4. The Louisiana Black Bear recovery effort to build travel corridors in the landscape
is an example of a great multifaceted partnership that includes business.
IMPROVING THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE (Round 2)
Discussion revolved around what could be done to ensure a company’s policies are
having a positive affect on restoration. Important messages about the role of business in
conservation success were developed to take to politicians, business partners, and
society in general.
Positive restoration can be ensured by using expert/scientific knowledge and
reinvestment of company profits back into restoration. Industry needs to recognize the
importance of shared profits with partners in the form of investments in new technology
(i.e., biofuels) and R&D, and societal improvement programs via corporate foundations.
Utility companies are buying carbon offsets to lower their exposure to risk should
carbon eventually become regulated in the U.S. Also, it is cheaper to buy carbon offsets
now rather than later.
It is important for businesses to partner with the right experts to insure their efforts get
benefits.
The messages to politicians revolve around companies’ desire to be good stewards of the
environment and, therefore, will voluntarily move in the direction of restoring
ecosystems (this is already happening due to societal pressure).
The messages to business leaders are that good environmental stewardship/restoration is
good business, i.e. good for profits and good for forest health and sustainability of
corporate resources. For example, green certification of lumber or zero runoff parking
lots translate to business dollars due to positive public perception.
Currently, the business of the delta is agriculture. The economic diversification of the
land base is the way to financially incentivize corporate interests to pursue the
restoration of the LMAV.
The message to society is that business can and will be a good steward of the
environment.
20
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT SESSIONS
During the second day, participants self-selected to work on developing a collaborative
strategy around (1) improving science and science delivery, (2) creating partnerships and
demonstration projects, and (3) improving conservation and incentive programs. These
are the combined results of those tables’ efforts.
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: IMPROVING SCIENCE AND SCIENCE DELIVERY
FOR THE LMAV
Table Leads: Skip Hyberg-USDA Farm Services Agency
Ted Leininger-USDA Forest Service
Things We Don't Know That We Need To Know To Restore The LMAV
 Need for a Master Plan: Map of ecological communities for MAV to define where
on the landscape to plant trees and approach restoration strategically. Plan needs
better buy-in and information.
o Overlaying the data provides potential ecosystems mapping which can be
validated with vegetative inventory
o Existing data gap includes:
 Need physiology mapping
 Need digitized soils data-NRCS is on schedule to complete
mapping of existing soils data in 2007. Some surveys are 30 years
old and will be updated in the unspecified future.
 Need better hydrologic information-US ACE (Hydrology data is
obtained using remote sensing data of MAV during three different
stages: below bands stage, 3 to 5 year flooding event, and
maximum observed flooding event.)
 Develop digitized data base of location of WRP and CRP on landscape (FSA).
When combined with previous maps and forest inventory data would provide
indicator of USDA program effects on fragmentation, and conversion of land from
flood impacted to flood compatible land uses. The data base ideally would be
combined with specific practice (species established, spacing, etc.) and
monitoring information to track USDA conservation and its effectiveness.
 Inventory of existing forests and their conditions. FS inventory useful for
examining forests within an ecosystem framework, but not for implementing
programs or projects. The existing FS inventory is not designed to address the
functioning of environmental processes, a critical need for ecosystem restoration.
Inventory would enhance ability to target reforestation efforts. The inventory
would have additional benefits if combined with clearly defined and well
documented set of desired forest conditions.
 Develop set of MAV scale metrics: suggestions included N delivery to gulf,
proportion of flood susceptible activities to flood compatible activities. These
metrics need to be translated into measures that are meaningful to public and
decision makers.
 Develop plumbing data (hydrography) - Regional mapping of water movement
between rivers, streams, lakes, bayous, and drainage systems is a critical factor for
21

describing and estimating nutrient flows, and ecosystem restoration. Information
is available for some local systems, but not for MAV system.
Develop monitoring protocol for forest condition and structure. Identify primary
and secondary data elements. Will be completed in 3 to 24 months.
What Science Needs To Be Communicated To Decision Makers
Decisions are being made (e.g., CRP EBI, conservation, program selection criteria, future
farm legislation) and will continue to be made with the information assessable to
decision makers. Science can make a vital contribution by making an effort to
communicate with decision makers. This communication needs to be two ways,
identifying decision makers' information needs and communicating critical concerns and
data in usable form. The terminology and complexity of science can be a barrier to
application of knowledge to efforts to restore ecosystem. We need to overcome these
barriers through careful communication.
 MAV scale metrics to communicate ecosystem performance; these metrics need
to driven by science but assessable to layman.
o Need to facilitate seamless funding to tech providers.
o Role of extension in facilitating programs
 Monitoring protocols for monitoring forest condition and structure, measuring
progress and identifying most fruitful conservation measures, and other relevant
variables.
 Need to communicate MAV forest inventory needs to FS FIA unit to identify
opportunities for partnership and collaboration.
 Study wetland functions/values on WRP with and without hydrologic
restoration and to natural wetland (soils, age, site).
o Have FS participation of state technical committees
 Restore hydrologic function to hydrologically altered landscapes in 800-1000 acre
tracts
o Hydrologic function as a basis for establishing vegetation, e.g., forests for
economic value; how are trees best utilized in the restoration process?
 Sustainability issue:
o Develop carbon markets/biofuels-bioenergy programs
o Pay attention to the world rules
o Improve federal programs for sustainability? WRP is perpetual-what are
long term monetary goals?
 Limit 25% caps for non-marginal lands would free up more capacity beyond
marginal lands.
What Science Needs To Be Communicated To Landowners
 Alternatives are available
 More clearly define success
 Economic opportunities and tradeoffs
o Be familiar with developing markets
22
What Science Can Do To Help Restore The LMAV
Use of process and decision support models can identify areas within the landscape to
target for maximum benefit for wildlife habitat, water quality enhancement, and
hydrologic storage. Overlaying these maps will identify areas that if restored would
maximize multiple goals. This information can be used to target scarce resources for
maxim mum effect.
 Mapping to improve the effectiveness of programs
o Valley-level metrics, e.g., nitrogen delivered to Gulf of Mexico
o Hydrologic data
o LMAVJV monitoring tool
 Decision support and SHARED VISION
o Vision-maps of possible/desirable conditions
 US ACE, USDA, FWS need a SHARED VISION
 Better measures of progress (answer “so what” & “what did my tax $ buy?”)
o Monitoring systems implementation
o Monitoring outcomes to determine long term outcomes and value
 Need BLH regeneration model for Upper MAV
o GIY of even-age BLH stands; TPA? All oak, mixed species.
o NASA sensor-last part of June for IBW habitat
o NASA funded researcher from University of MD will analyze data BA,
biomass, canopy analysis.
o Landscape restoration around the world
 International efforts at global forest restoration-meeting in
Colorado in May
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: EXPANDING PARTNERSHIPS AND
DEVELOPING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS THAT EXPEDITE
RESTORATION
Table Leads: Lee Moore-The Nature Conservancy
Tom Darden-USDA Forest Service
Themes Of Existing Projects
 Government programs (Farm bill, EPA, LIP, etc)
 Education and outreach (letting landowners and others know what’s available
and how to participate
 Carbon sequestration with multi partners (NGO’s, government, private sector)
 Partnership building and project implementation utilizing government grants
Recommendations For What We Can Do Together
1. Identify state or federal agency with funding to catalogue what is being done in
the LMAV towards ecosystem restoration – who’s involved, what are their goals,
project specifics.
a. Provide a way to disseminate info to all stakeholders with necessary
outreach and support (including available programs, funding sources and
supporting agencies/organizations)
b. Be transparent and available to all
23
2. Address biomass opportunities for reforestation in LMAV exploring the
opportunities to utilize progressive forestry (like inter-planting of cottonwoods
between hardwoods) that supports the landowner’s income streams until
recreational values can be realized.
a. Possibly have FS fund a position to lead landowner efforts that bring
together local groups (around Potlatch plant) and explore opportunities
b. Explore partnerships between different sectors of industry – energy and
wood products groups – towards identifying overlap and increasing
efficiencies
c. Possible DOE grants available to support position and work
3. Identify funding (or get funding from FS) to research and develop valuations of
the suite of ecosystem services associated with ecosystem restoration of a site or
sites (Bayou Bartholomew or others) to better inform Congress and others of the
establishment of baseline values of services
a. Then banking could begin of services not currently recognized by
markets, coupled with the education of key decision makers could move
towards the establishment of new markets
b. Need to include a divers group of stakeholders (agencies, NGO’s,
landowners, private sector) utilize the best available science, and
understand that it’s a baseline for beginning the valuations.
4. Utilize better technologies to achieve more efficient restoration. Specifically,
Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency is working with the University of
Tennessee and other partners to develop protocols to advance seedling
production. Those larger seedlings, coupled with using GIS remote sensing to
identify subtle elevation changes and locate prime planting locations for
associated species, are showing promising results in initial restoration sites.
TWRA is willing to host a field day for regional conservation practitioners,
foresters, and private landowners to share the results in their work and utilize at
other sites as applicable. Being new technology, this work would need to be tied
to a larger monitoring effort in the Delta to compare growth and mortality at the
test sites versus growth and mortality at traditional restoration sites (WRP).
5. Use the power of partnerships in FS recommendations for the FY07 Farm Bill
reauthorization. Specifically, include major recommendations put forth by the
stakeholder group that benefit ecosystem restoration in the lower valley, i.e. –
fully fund WRP and CRP (including technical assistance funds), address county
caps on easements and government programs (possibly though an exemption on
special projects like WREP and CREP), ensure climate change recognition, and
explore the designation of a regional corridor for wide-ranging mammals and
migratory birds/waterfowl that would provide greater incentives for landowners
that have land in the corridors between the last remaining large blocks of
forestland (Atchafalaya, Tensas, Yazoo, White, Hatchie, Reelfoot, etc.)
a. Develop a directory/list (electronic bulletin board?) of active programs
(e.g., use “Bubbler” software)
6. Develop a demonstration to manipulate hydrology – e.g., moist soil management,
in concert with tree planting (LA)
24
7. Develop a demonstration of integrated watershed management. Bringing people
together, demonstrating collaboration/partnerships, innovative approaches,
including adaptive management. Possible candidate sites:
a. Cabin Teal – 50,000 acres, near Vicksburg, research on water quality,
reforestation, and crop data. This is a well-studied site that’s on the brink
of contributing something useful. Needs additional funding. We’ve
already got the groundwork done with the community; good success with
farm programs.
b. South Delta – 30,000 acre watershed
c. Arklamis Junction: Significant because historic river cuts were made
here; a number of oxbow lakes were created by navigation projects.
Brings in the Army Corps, which would be really important.
d. Bayou Bartholomew: Under EPA watershed grant, has received awards;
runs from Arkansas down to Louisiana.
e. Davis Island: Nice remaining block of bottomland hardwoods.
f. Lower Yazoo: This may be a very challenging situation – at least in terms
of demonstration; EPA has large interest, lots of state politics, the Corps
has been pulled in. Could be a low likelihood of success.
g. Lake Providence: Possible site for an ethanol plant. Industry could be
involved from the start
h. Key questions related to demonstration sites:
i. What outcomes or criteria are we looking for in a demonstration
site?
1. EPA will be looking at the micro-watershed concept (1,000
acres or less)
2. Landowners will be looking at economics
3. NRCS – afforestation needs to be an element
4. TNC’s concerns will be for biodiversity conservation
5. US ACE will be looking for larger sites
6. Should be looking for opportunities for poverty alleviation,
economic development; help communities that are really
struggling.
7. Brownfield issues – put back into productive use?
8. Ability to monitor, identify ecosystem services and credits,
see some tangible, quantifiable results
9. Nested watersheds (micro/small watersheds within a
larger defined area), which gives an opportunity for all
agencies to be involved
10. Availability of local leadership
i. What would success look like – within six months?
i. Establish partnerships - gain agreement of agencies and key
stakeholders
ii. Complete rapid assessment, characterization
iii. Develop a long-term plan
iv. Local leadership identified and engaged
1. What would success look like – longer-term?
25
Candidate Sites For Demonstration Of Integrated Watershed Management
Criteria
 Likelihood of success
 Variety of land uses
 Biodiversity
 Water quality or
quantity
 Carbon
 Sedimentation
(threat)
 Afforestation
 Nested watersheds
 Hydrology
 Economic
development
 Monitoring
 Local leadership
 Focus area for
multiple interests
 Remediation
Cabin
Teal
H
H
M
H+
Arklamis
L
H
H
South
Delta
M
M
M
Providence
Lake
L
M
M
Lake
Bartholomew
H
H
H+
H = High; M = Medium; L = Low
In a general sense, Cabin Teal was believed to have the greatest likelihood of success,
while Bayou Bartholomew is going to be the easiest to work in.
[The group decided not to go into further detail in analyzing/comparing these sites, given
that few participants had a strong idea of local conditions; also that agency leads would
have to consider these (and perhaps other) sites in making decisions].
j.
v. Integrated watershed management – ecosystem services, economic
development, biodiversity conservation, market-driven incentives.
vi. A holistic integrated approach.
vii. A demonstration of how we can get these concepts on the ground.
Key opportunity for learning, replication.
viii. Validating the concept of cooperative conservation.
ix. The key is landowner involvement.
x. Lessons and successes help prioritize larger-scale investment.
Next steps
i. Finalize selection criteria, overall selection process, and candidate
demonstration sites
ii. Everyone here is staff support – need to have internal staff
briefings with agencies to get commitment/buy-in from leadership
26
iii. Compile and share notes from this meeting to be used in agency
briefings
iv. Core group needs to move this forward: NRCS (M. Sullivan); TNC
(R. Ulmer); USDA FS (E. Estill); US ACE (Larry Marcy), EPA,
DEQ (Anne Boiston), FWS (Bill Uline, Charles Baxter), USGS
(Stephen Faulkner), LMRCC (Ron Nasser)
v. Leads consult with agencies and others, then organize a
conference call or meeting to discuss
vi. Forest Service willing to take the lead/facilitation role?
vii. Seek available funding from agencies and outside partners?
k. Balance between inter-state, inter-agency tension, with project being too
localized and parochial. If we’re going to get buy in from all three states
agencies and delegations.
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT: IMPROVING CONSERVATION AND INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS
Table Leads: Doug Daigle-Lower Mississippi Sub-basin Committee on Hypoxia
Greg Ruark-USDA Forest Service
Some participants felt there were already a sufficient number of Federal and other
programs to get the job done in the LMRV. In fact NRCS may have too many programs
and not enough ability to provide technical assistance. Technical assistance needs to be
ramped up to insure conservation benefits are obtained. FLEP in the FS is a well crafted
program and needs to be funded and maintained. Recommendations were directed at
improving existing programs.
Recommendations:
 Create better programs, simpler programs, with “one-stop shopping” for federal
and state programs.
 Add stability to programs and increase term-length. Reinstitute the “funding
until expended” language, so programs don’t lose funds if they don’t spend them
within the allocated timeframe.
 Remove tax on cost share funds landowners receive on practices that don’t
provide economic gain but do provide social benefits, e.g., fire breaks and stream
crossings.
 Coordinate conservation programs with commodity programs. Often the need
for conservation programs results when commodity supports create incentives
for cropping marginal lands. Need to get corresponding investment in
conservation programs to track commodity efforts.
 Increase soil rental rates to more closely match reality. Commodity support
payments often distort this price point and encourage marginal lands to be
cropped.
o Create rental rates for not only dry land cropland but also for irrigated
cropland to make the incentives attractive enough for these croplands to
be enrolled by willing farm producers.
27










o Change the definition of “cropland”. Remove marginal lands from the
“cropland” definition; base 25% cap on true croplands, not marginal lands.
o Provide improved incentives for marginal land to be put into timber.
Create an easier process for state agencies and others to set up long-term
technical service provider agreements with the federal programs.
o Find ways to deal with the need to straddle funds across the Sept. 30 to
Oct. 1 fiscal year break.
o Provide technical assistance funds for mid-contract practices.
Allow longer sign-up for federal agriculture programs to allow states to fill their
acreage caps before transferring funding to other states.
Change program award cycles to match the purpose of the programs. Ranking
and awards are currently only once a year, making activities like tree planting
difficult due to limited planting timeframes.
Focus on the higher and more productive sites within the LMAV and examine
surplus crop production and investigate the benefit of establishing a cap on
surplus production (5-25%); move crop subsidy payments to crop surplus
reduction payments in the form of funding long-term conservation programs on
these lands.
Examine areas in the LMAV that could receive periodic overflow from the
Mississippi River to aid in nutrient filtration of the system (giving relief to the
Gulf hypoxia situation); these areas should include forest and agricultural lands,
especially WRP or other conservation easement lands; establishing sufficient
numbers of these areas throughout the MAV would allow for annual diversion
across the valley, but not necessarily across the same lands every year (perhaps
across the same lands once every 3 to 5 years).
Increase incentives for all the Continuous CRP practices so they match other
CCRP practice incentives. For example, offer the 20% sign up bonus for soil
rental rates, and the Signing Incentive Payments and the Practice Incentive
payment on all CCRP practices not just a limited few. All of the CCRP practices
provide exceptional environmental benefits and most are already of the highest
priority for the LMAV
Allow CRP enrollments on cropland inside levees where the Corps of Engineers
already has a flowage easement. It is already possible to do this for WRP
easements as long as the ACE easement does not allow them to clear all
vegetation if they see fit. This should be a policy change recommended to FSA
and the 2-CRP Handbook.
Drop 10% requirement for cash match by state and non-government partners for
CREP. This policy currently discriminates against poorer states in the MVRV
who have an extremely hard time finding this amount of cash money to make a
CREP viable.
Create clear, consistent, federal rules and regulations for carbon incentive
programs.
Encourage federal agencies (specifically, USDA Forest Service) to become better
acquainted with developing markets and how they’re developing to improve
efficiency in writing and implementing programs and regulations. Attention
should be given to world rules and evolution of commodity regulations.
28




Improve and expedite the collection of information and data sets on ecological
services from programs, including mixed oak-hardwood plantings. Timber and
pulp are the only historical data sets. The next 20 years are critical to collect
information (may be the federal government’s role).
Increase federal and state agency staffs, especially biologists and other scientists
for partnering with the private sector. Specifically, recommend the Farm Service
Agency place a wildlife biologist in each state office covering the LMAV to be a
voice for wildlife habitat and promote and educate county staff on habitat
establishment, wildlife biology, landowner benefits, and wildlife benefits in
establishing and maintaining the best habitat on CRP contracts.
Encourage private business investment in biofuels and technical assistance to
landowners.
Improve the delivery process of the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)
as the USFS has with Forest Landowners Enhancement Program (FLEP). Allow
WHIP to be delivered by the state wildlife agencies similar to how state forestry
agencies deliver the FLEP. The NRCS would provide oversight for WHIP similar
to how the USFS maintains oversight for FLEP. This change in program deliver
would reduce NRCS’s already tremendous workloads at the county level with
this change and ensures wildlife technical assistance is provided by the most
efficient means.
SYNOPSIS OF WORK GROUP FINDINGS AND PRESENTATIONS
Elizabeth Estill
Improving Science And Science Delivery For The LMAV
Two groups presented: Information/Data needs to help focus our energy in specific
places. What can this group accomplish short-term, long-term?





There’s clearly a need to develop an overall vision of success, and good maps can
help us get there. If we can use maps and visuals to help achieve this overarching
vision of the possible/desirable, this could guide our efforts.
Challenge is different agencies and their different perspectives and ways of
representing issues, so there is a need for more coordination in putting scientists
together to figure out how they can collectively contribute.
The need to communicate science with this vision in mind might move us
forward.
We need better understanding of actions and effects of actions at the large scale.
Things get very complex at this larger scale, and we do need to work toward
understanding large-scale dynamics.
We heard a clear cry for standard measures to track how we’re doing. How do
we measure the “so what” question? Scientists could contribute significantly to
this, by developing meaningful measures, and by identifying metrics and figuring
out how it could be done.
Discussion/Q and A:
 There’s this assumption that the data is all out there, that all we need to do is
simply pull it together to have it make any sense. The truth is that data is often
29





very much tied to localized projects, but there is little data or information
available for the LMAV as a whole. In many cases we’ve had to take data and
convert it to units or analysis that we could use.
We need to try to find a way to work more closely with the Army Corps.
The Army Corps is developing a forest action plan for the lands they
administered, and they have been looking into a couple of models to accomplish
this.
There’s a scientific role for developing credible outcome measures. It’s helpful for
the scientists to stay with the project long enough to see what happens over time,
and lend some scientific credibility to the effort.
Changes in hydrology – it’s not simply the floodplain, but also the in-stream,
channel data. It takes a lot of expertise, and the Army Corps has the expertise
and the data sets, so we need to work with them more on this as well.
Our knowledge/information about hardwood stands is quite limited. We don’t
know whether what we’re recommending for landowners is sound or not. We
can’t really predict what they’re going to get down the road.
Expanding Partnerships And Developing Demonstration Projects That Expedite
Restoration
Two groups presented: Are there new things we want to test on the ground? Are there
any major epiphanies? Can we identify some goals – short-term, long-term?

Four potential demonstration efforts:
o Building understanding and information system, getting a directory of
who’s doing what (website notion)
o Technology utilization demonstration (especially GIS for better siting of
activities)
o Developing a strong integrated watershed management project
o Having a facilitator work with a group to develop specific projects, such
as biomass utilization
Discussion/Q and A:
 The demo site should really be a research and demonstration site. We need to
monitor and analyze what we’re learning from this experience. We need to build
in a strong research element so we do good, solid adaptive management
 Q: Who would be the appropriate lead for the information system piece? A: It
really should be through a federal agency, or perhaps a non-profit that does this
with federal support.
 We really do need a common website – someone mentioned the “Bubbler”
software as an effective means of maintaining communication.
 Good to remember that there’s more to do than bottomland hardwoods, e.g.,
riparian buffers also give us an opportunity to do some assessment.
 If things go as planned, we’ll have some good research and demonstration data on
bottomland hardwoods within the LMAV. This is related to Ivory-billed
Woodpecker. We’re more than happy to make this data available to other
agencies and researchers.
30




Q: What’s the cost of this work (bottomlands hardwoods research)? A:
Somewhere in the area of $200,000.
Q: Re a central clearinghouse for information – what is everyone envisioning? A
website, like LMAV.org? Are we looking at an office? What kind of structure are
we looking at? A: We didn’t really discuss the details of this; yes, it could be a
website, an office – both are possible. We only identified the need, but certainly
we do need to figure out how best to organize this. A2: The logical place for this
is in Charles Baxter’s Joint Venture shop, in Vicksburg.
Global Partnership for Forest Landscape Restoration: they’re setting up a
network for learning sites for landscape restoration around the world. They’re
meeting in May in Colorado, and they are working on developing an approach to
landscape restoration. This would be a very good link for this group – would
extend the value of what we do to a larger audience.
Since we’re in Tennessee, it’s worth noting that we’ve planted more than 2,000
Acres with local seed material. There’s a lot to share and show here about what
we’ve done and what we’re learning.
Improving Conservation And Incentive Programs
Two groups presented: What are federal, state, and local opportunities for investment?
What other incentives or inducements exist or need to exist?







There’s no shortage of government programs; let’s try to streamline them into
larger, more flexible programs, or at least work toward consolidating them to
create one-stop shopping for landowners.
We heard concerns about rental rates and caps, about tax incentives.
There are also a number of concerns related to award cycles.
There is a need for a sign-up incentive for CRP.
There is need for more technical assistance support/funding to go along with
some of these programs.
There is a need for some bundling of programs, so that a landowner can get more
than one form of compensation.
We also heard a lot about ecosystem service marketing – it’s coming, so let’s get
ready for it. There’s a federal role for staying informed internationally, developing
data and information resources, and beginning to figure out an appropriate
regulatory role.
Discussion/Q and A:




Q: Is there a role for extension in the process of providing this information – onestop information service – or in terms of communication? A: Could be/should be.
Q: Is the 25% limit applied by counties? A: Yes.
Q: Can we raise that cap? A: It’s in the farm legislation, and it’s an issue because
rural communities have come to their reps and said too much cropland is coming
out of production. It’s a sensitive issue, and the way it needs to be changed is
statutorily.
Can we make exemptions for special projects? Could that be a way to get around
the legislation? A: In the lower valley, we could do this perhaps for corridor areas.
31
The Louisiana black bear, for example, could be connected – through the Yazoo
and the Chippewa – using these designations.
MOVING FORWARD
Elizabeth Estill
Short-Term Steps
1) Raw notes of this meeting will be out to you by next Friday. Please read through these
and let us know if we got anything wrong. If you have a brilliant insight on your way
home, you’re also welcome to add to the text when you review it. Within a couple of
weeks, we’ll try to get out a synthesis of the entire conference – the results and outcomes
of the discussions.
2) We’ll be thinking of convening some sub-groups, possibly electronically or via
conference call, to discuss some key themes. One would be science. We’ve already got
the beginnings of a core group, and we’re thinking about something like a “Science You
Can Use” conference. We’d like to do some advance preparations, some writing and
presentation before the meeting – a synthesis piece would be a good start.
3) Farm Bill: Lots of discussion of what could be done to make it more effective. The
Forest Service lead for this has been here with us, and we did get a good understanding
of some of the recommendations from this group. At the same time, each of you has a
role to play in using your conduits and access to influence policies. As we get
information back to you about these recommendations, don’t expect the feds to get it
done. Consider using your own networks and contacts.
4) Demonstrations: Lots of good ideas here, and we’ll definitely follow up on some of
these. I don’t think the Forest Service should take the lead on the clearinghouse, but I
assure you we will participate, and at least some leadership in getting conference calls or
other initial communications going. The specific R and D site is of great interest – and
we’ll certainly help you move this forward. I’ll ask the two table leads to help get this
started, and maybe we can get something in place before the next growing season. The
notion of a different kind of governance structure, to get good restoration and
environmental services efforts going – we’ll work very hard in getting that kind of a
demonstration going. This is of great interest to USDA – How can we deliver assistance
and funding to groups of people that are doing things differently? The other
demonstrations – technology, for example, could benefit by a follow up group.
As we go through the notes from this meeting, we’ll likely identify other actions that we
will want to take forward. And we encourage you to help us identify other potential
initiatives.
###
32