Themes and Actions, LMAV Stakeholder Meeting, April 6-7
The LMAV Regional Stakeholder Workshop, hosted by the USDA Forest Service, was
attended by a diverse group of organizations and individuals from 41 federal, state, and
tribal agencies, private business and non-governmental organizations. The purpose of the
meeting was to develop an understanding of current activities focused on restoration of
LMAV ecosystems, identify actions that would improve and expedite results, and
develop synergy and focus for actions including demonstration projects. An impressive
array of programs and actions were identified. In addition, four major themes and five
broad actions emerged.
The themes are:
1. Ecosystem restoration in the LMAV is only possible with widespread, voluntary
participation of private landowners.
2. A collaboratively developed national vision for environmental goals in the LMAV
is needed to provide focus and continuity of individual/organizational actions and
sub-basin implementation measures.
3. Conservation incentives must be consistent over time, easily accessible,
adequately funded, flexible enough to meet local needs, targeted to provide
greater ecological benefits (ecosystem services) and coordinated so that they can
be bundled to provide greater economic return to landowners for restoration
activities.
4. Science can be effectively used in making decisions only if it is better integrated
between scientists and disciplines and focused on providing information that can
be used by stakeholders to understand possibilities, options, and environmental
and economic consequences of various land uses and management practices at
multiple scales.
The actions are:
1. Improve information about LMAV condition, needs, and opportunities. Better
integrate ongoing actions and plans. Suggestions included:
a. Develop a common, accessible catalog/website of restoration programs,
incentives, and activities to provide “one stop” access to landowners and
potential implementation partners;
b. Develop a clearinghouse for geographic information that could be used by
organizations to target restoration activities more effectively and also could be
used to develop a national plan for restoration and report results.
Potential leadership identified for this action (improve information) included, but was
not limited to, LMAV Joint Venture, USGS, The Nature Conservancy, USFS, NRCS,
FSA. (See p.22-23, p.15, p.29-30 of LMAV Stakeholder Workshop Synthesis of
Information for more detail.)
2. Improve/provide community based “futuring” and planning, and improve
implementation coordination. Suggestions included:
a. Develop a demonstration of landowners working together in a group large
enough to create significant ecosystem services from jointly planned and
implemented restoration activities (like tree planting or riparian buffer
restoration).
b. Demonstrate how ecosystem services could be bundled and marketed to
produce income for landowners.
c. Work with communities/industry to develop businesses that would use
secondary products of restoration (like woody biomass) to create additional
income and community stability.
Potential leadership identified for this action (improve community
planning/coordinated implementation) included, but was not limited to, Economic
Development Districts, Regional Councils, US LandCare, USFS, Agroforestry
Center, NRCS, FSA.
(See p.12,13,14,17,23 of LMAV Stakeholder Workshop Synthesis of Information for
more detail.)
3. Provide coordinated research and science delivery. Suggestions included:
a. Develop a baseline valuation of ecosystem services.
b. Collaboratively develop and consistently use large scale metrics to monitor
and communicate ecosystem performance.
c. Collaboratively develop and provide mapping capability to improve
communications and effectiveness of programs (i.e. GIS development
including layers currently unavailable. Similar to 1B.)
d. Synthesize science around the economics and mechanics of conservation
practices in the LMAV and communicate effectively to landowners.
Potential leadership identified for this action (provide coordinated research and
science delivery) included, but was not limited to, USGS, EPA, USFS (So. Research
Station), USFWS (LMAV Joint Venture), LSU, MSU. (See p.14,15,17,21,22,23 of
LMAV Stakeholder Workshop Synthesis of Information for more detail.)
4. Better coordinate and simplify conservation programs through modification of
directives, regulations, and legislation where appropriate. Suggestions included:
a. Create “one-stop shopping” for federal assistance to landowners.
b. Add stability to programs and increase term-length. Reinstitute the “funded
until expended” language.
c. Exempt conservation cost-share payments as taxable income.
d. Coordinate conservation programs with commodity programs so that supports
do not create incentives for cropping marginal lands.
e. Increase soil rental rates and improve incentives for marginal land to be put
into forests and other conservation uses.
f. Allow longer sign-up for federal agriculture programs to allow states to fill
their acreage caps before transferring funding to other states.
g. Change program award cycles to match the purpose of the program (current
cycle makes activities like tree planting difficult due to limited planting
window).
h. Fully fund WRP and CRP, including technical assistance funds.
i. Allow CRP enrollments on lands inside levees where the USACE has flowage
easements and other appropriate “bundling” of payments for conservation
measures.
j. Drop 10% cash match by State and non-governmental organization partners
for CREP as it is hampering conservation progress in the poorer states within
the LMAV.
k. Allow WHIP to be delivered by State Wildlife Agencies similar to the delivery
of FLEP by State Forestry Agencies to reduce workload of NRCS field units.
l. Increase cooperation across organizations; create an easier process for state
agencies to set up technical service provider agreements with federal
programs; allow for use of the best experts, irrespective of organization, to
provide technical assistance.
m. Develop private sector for technical assistance delivery.
n. Target and coordinate programs spatially to increase effectiveness.
o. Designate a regional corridor for wide-ranging mammals and birds that would
allow greater incentive payments to landowners that can connect large blocks
of forestland.
p. Create clear, consistent, federal rules and regulations for carbon incentive
programs.
q. Improve and expedite the collection of information and data on the effect of
government programs and landowner actions on ecosystem services.
Potential leadership identified for this action (coordinate and simplify conservation
programs) included, but was not limited to, USDA’s, NRCS, FSA, and FS; USFWS;
Arkansas Forestry Commission. (See p. 13,14,16,18,19,27 of LMAV Stakeholder
Workshop Synthesis of Information for more detail.)
5. Develop an Integrated Watershed Management Demonstration Project which uses
innovative approaches to restoration, like moist soil management in concert with
tree planting to manipulate hydrology and/or GIS application to improve seedling
viability. This Demonstration would specifically employ adaptive management
principles, create market-driven incentives for the provision of ecosystem
services, demonstrate collaboration and partnerships, and would result in
biodiversity conservation, improved water quality and other ecosystem services,
as well as improve local economic stability. In addition the demonstration could
become the basis for valuation of ecosystem services in the LMAV.
Potential leadership identified for this action (develop an integrated watershed
management demonstration) included, but was not limited to, USFS (State and
Private Forestry), The Nature Conservancy, USF&WS, TWRA, USFWS, USGS,
NRCS, FSA. (See p.24,-27,30 of LMAV Stakeholder Workshop Synthesis of
Information for more detail.)