Mississippi’s Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource Strategy

Conserve working forest landscapes

Enhance public Protect benefits forests from trees from harm and forests

July 2010 Mississippi Forestry Commission Mississippi’s Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource Strategy. An analysis of forest-related conditions, trends, threats and an overview of opportunities and strategies to address them. July 2010 Produced by the Mississippi Forestry Commission with assistance by a grant from the National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service. The mission of the Mississippi Forestry Commission is to provide active leadership in forest protection, forest management, forest inventory and effective forest information distribution necessary for Mississippi’s sustainable forest-based economy.

Mississippi Forestry Commission 660 North Street, Suite 300 Jackson, Mississippi 39202 Charlie Morgan, State Forester www.mfc.ms.gov (601) 359-1386 Phone (601) 359-1349 Fax

Acknowledgements This document was produced with contributions from many staff from the Mississippi Forestry Commission via their Statewide Forest Assessment and Strategies Working Group: Tympel Blansett, Randy Chapin, Dennis Dauterive, Sandra Ford, Bruce Frasier, Patrick Glass, Brant Godbold, Kent Grizzard, Mark Hamilton, Richard McInnis, Rick Olson, Randal Romedy, Blake Thomas and Wayne Tucker with oversight from the Mississippi Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee and with input from many stakeholder organizations, institutions, businesses, agencies and individuals. Special thanks for the support and guidance of the USDA Forest Service Region 8 staff. We sincerely appreciate the input of many partner agencies, organizations, institutions and individuals in the development of this document. A list is included in Appendix A. This document was compiled and edited by Elizabeth Barber, Tympel Blansett, Kent Grizzard and Randal Romedy. Very special thanks to Randal Romedy for mapping and GIS support. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ...... 1

I. Introduction to Assessment of Forest Resources ...... 2

II. Mississippi’s Forest Resources ...... 5

III. Key Issues ...... 30

IV. Priority Forest Areas ...... 67

V. Introduction to Forest Resource Strategies ...... 86

VI. Strategic Issues Matrix ...... 92

VII. State Forestry Programs and Resources ...... 108

VIII. References ...... 153

IX. Acronyms ...... 158

Appendix A: MS Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy Development Process . . . 160

Appendix B: Detailed Program Guidance ...... 162

Appendix C: Mississippi Forest Assessment Public Survey Results ...... 163

1 I. Introduction to Mississippi’s Assessment of Forest Resources

The Mississippi Forestry Commission Assessment provides an analysis of forest (MFC) is the lead agency for conditions and trends in the state and development of Mississippi’s Statewide delineates priority rural and urban forest Assessment of Forest Resources landscape areas. The Strategy provides and Forest Resource Strategy. general long-term plans for investing state, federal, and other resources to effectively stimulate or leverage desired The mission of the Mississippi action and engage multiple partners. Forestry Commission is to The new CFAA refers to the process provide active leadership of “redesigning” how federal funding is in forest protection, forest provided to state forestry agencies carrying management, forest out particular forestry programs on privately inventory and effective forest owned forestland. The MFC uses these information distribution funds, through the U.S. Department of necessary for Mississippi’s Agriculture Forest Service’s (USFS) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs, to sustainable forest-based support a number of local forestry programs, economy. including technical forestry assistance to rural and urban landowners, enhancing wildfire protection efforts, and supporting forest health programs that address insects, diseases and non-native invasive species that are affecting the health and productivity of Mississippi’s forestland. The purpose of a “redesigned” S&PF is to shape and influence forestland use on a scale and in a way that optimizes public benefits from trees and forests for both current and future generations. In 2008, the This document was prepared in response to USFS began implementing the Redesign the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of effort in response to the combined pressures 2008 (the Farm Bill) that requires each state on the nation’s forests and a decrease to complete a Statewide Forest Resource in resource funds as well as the need for Assessment (Assessment) and a long- better partnerships on projects and better term Statewide Forest Resource Strategy program integration. State assessments and (Strategy) by June 2010 in order to receive resource strategies are integral to S&PF funds under the amended Cooperative Redesign and required as an amendment to Forestry Assistance Act (CFAA). The the CFAA, as enacted in the 2008 Farm Bill.

2 There are three parts to the assessment, strategy and planning process required by the Redesign approach. National Themes Part I - Assessment of and Objectives: Forest Resources 1. Conserve Working The state forest resource assessment Forest Landscapes should provide a comprehensive analysis 1.1. Identify and conserve high of the forest-related conditions, trends, priority forest ecosystems threats, and opportunities within the and landscapes state. Assessments must include: 1.2. Actively and sustainably - An analysis of present and future manage forests forest conditions, trends, and threats 2. Protect Forests from Harm on all ownerships in the state using publicly available information. 2.1. Restore fire-adapted lands and reduce risk - Forest related threats, benefits, of wildfire impacts and services consistent with the 2.2. Identify , manage, and S&PF Redesign national themes. reduce threats to forest - Priority rural and urban forest landscape and ecosystem health areas to be addressed by the state 3. Enhance Public Benefits resource strategy. States can also from Trees and Forests identify linkages between terrestrial 3.1. Protect and enhance water and aquatic habitat, as appropriate. quality and quantity - Multi-state areas that are a regional priority. 3.2. Improve air quality and conserve energy - Existing statewide plans including state

Wildlife Strategies, Community Wildfire 3.3. Assist communities Protection Plans, and address existing in planning for and S&PF program planning requirements. reducing wildfire risks 3.4. Maintain and enhance the Part I of this document is a comprehensive economic benefits and assessment of Mississippi’s forest resources. values of trees and forests 3.5. Protect, conserve, and enhance wildlife and fish habitat 3.6. Connect people to trees and forests, and engage them in environmental stewardship activities 3.7. Manage and restore trees and forests to mitigate and adapt to global climate change

3 Part II - Forest Resource Strategy Annual Report on Use of Funds

The strategy will provide a long-term, Each year, MFC must submit an annual comprehensive, coordinated strategy for report based on the new Forest Resource investing state, federal, and leveraged Strategy that describes how Mississippi used partner resources to address the all of the S&PF program funds throughout management and landscape priorities the fiscal year. The report will also describe identified in the assessment. The resource specific actions taken throughout the year to strategy should incorporate existing address the state assessment and resource statewide forest and resource management strategy and will include a comprehensive plans and provide the basis for future budget with contributions from all federal, program, agency, and partner coordination. state, and non-governmental partners. The strategy must include: This document includes both the statewide assessment of Mississippi’s - An outline of long-term strategies for forest resources and the broad strategy addressing priority landscapes identified in components required by the 2008 Farm Bill. the assessment and the national themes and associated management objectives: An annual report will be developed by MFC each year after following the - Description of how the state proposes approval of this document that will also to invest federal funding, along with other include a detailed annual action plan with resources, to address state, regional, and specific goals, objectives and strategies national forest management priorities. for each program area and key issues. - A long-term timeline for project and program implementation. - Identification of partner and stakeholder involvement. - Strategies for monitoring outcomes within priority forest landscape areas and how action will be revised when needed. - Description of how the state’s proposed activities will accomplish national S&PF program objectives and respond to specified performance measures and indicators. - How S&PF programs will be used to address priority landscape and management objectives. - Existing statewide plans including wildlife action plans, community wildfire protection plans and address existing S&PF program planning requirements. Part II of this document is the forest resource strategy for Mississippi.

4 II. Mississippi’s Forest Resources

The mission of the Mississippi Institute by the mid and late 16th century, their for Forest Inventory (MIFI) within the impact on the native plant communities of Mississippi Forestry Commission (MFC) the region was limited largely to coastal is to survey and report on timber volume plain, savanna and bottomland forests. and forest resources in Mississippi through Earliest settlements in the Southeast U.S. a continuous, statewide forest resource were established in coastal areas and on inventory necessary for the sustainable old river terraces accessible by boat and forest based economy and to effectively barge, thus limiting the European settlers’ distribute and manage forest inventory impact on natural plant communities. based information for economic and public These areas were often cleared to make policy development. MFC, through MIFI, way for agriculture. The quantity of timber has renewed participation in recent years in taken during this time was limited both by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) -- a technology and local demand. Consequently, nationwide program of the Forest Service large areas of upland forest in the South through its Southern Research Station in were untouched until the 19th century. Knoxville, Tennessee that summarizes the Improved agricultural efficiency, a growing inventory of forest on public and private population, and better access to European lands and includes information on forest markets by the end of the 18th century health, ecological values, socioeconomic provided both the motivation and the benefits and biological diversity as well as capital necessary to expand the conversion standard tree inventory data. The following of native vegetation to agriculture. description and assessment of Mississippi’s People began to move westward into the forest resource conditions is based on data interior of the South and began to clear garnered from MIFI and FIA. Descriptions increasingly large tracts of land. In this of natural forest communities are based era of increased trade, additional exotic on the Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife species were introduced to the South. Conservation Strategy and the Forest Legacy Program Assessment of Need. In the early 18th century botanists from the Northeast such as John and William Bartram Additional details about forest conditions made several trips to the Southeast for as well as a description of the public botanical exploration and collection and benefits of forests and threats to forest published accounts of the natural history resources are also included in the of the areas that they visited. In 1775, description of major forest issues of William Bartram traveled in the Pearl River concern in Chapter III – Key Issues. basin in Mississippi. The Bartrams’ books History of Forest Resources and accounts are full of details of soil conditions in various places, lists of species To appreciate the current condition of encountered, and in some cases detailed Mississippi’s forest lands, it is important to descriptions of particular species and understand their history and the result of broad community types, including forests, anthropogenic influence over time. The savannas, glades, and swamps. William history of Mississippi’s forests mirrors that of Bartram also noted large areas of longleaf the Southeastern U.S. Though Europeans pine and “expansive ancient Indian fields.” began to explore and settle the Southeast 5 Historic coverage of major proximity to mineral resources. These areas forest types in Mississippi. were less common but usually had equally significant impacts on the local vegetation. Although the Native American population had declined significantly by this time, Lumber was needed for development during these people were sufficiently common in this period, and the supply was considered the early 18th century to exert a continued "inexhaustible.” Small mills sprang up impact on wide areas of the southern in localized areas. Timber harvest was landscape through their agriculture and, relatively light due to the primitive logging more importantly, their use of fire as a and milling methods that depended on means of manipulating vegetation. The animals and water for transportation and aboriginal practice of burning the forests was water flow for running primitive sawmills. adopted by European settlers soon after In the mid-1800s, the piney woods of permanent settlements were established. southeast Mississippi were considered to be During the early 19th century, settlers infertile lands for farming and were inhabited moved across the region in search of primarily by cattlemen and hunters. In quality farmland to clear for agriculture. The those days, any land occupied by pines Natchez area was favored as a place to was considered to be unfit for the growth settle and farm due to the fertile lands and of cotton and corn. In 1860, Mississippi's tremendous forests. Europeans selected and 16 most southeastern counties were the exploited other areas on the basis of their most sparsely populated region in the state, strategic value for military outposts or their except for the Mississippi-Yazoo River 6 Delta. One writer correctly predicted that the of 1891. .Since then, national forestlands tremendous pine forests would one day be have been critical refuges of functional the center of the lumber trade for the nation. native plant communities in the South. The timber industry that moved to the At the turn of the 20th century, the logging South in the late 1800s exploited the vast industry in the South was producing expanses of pine and hardwood forest lumber at its historical peak. So much land. The steam engine and the use of forest land had been logged that timber railroads made it possible for lumbermen companies were finding it difficult to access to move rapidly through the Mississippi merchantable trees and were beginning to forests. Northern lumbermen and a few from close mills and move to the newly opened the South purchased huge land holdings, virgin timberlands of the Northwest. Although erected sawmills and built railroads to get World War I caused a short-lived resurgence the logs into the mills. The logging practices in the demand for timber and naval stores, of the day were destructive and often left a the conversion of the shipbuilding industry treeless and fire-ravaged landscape. Some from wood to steel by 1920 caused demand landowners were very farsighted and began for southern timber and naval stores to to practice selective and seed tree harvests fall drastically. By 1930 the majority of and conserved timber for the future. Most of the longleaf pine communities had been them, however, operated until their timber essentially cut over, as had the interior supplies were exhausted and then relocated. shortleaf pines. Upland hardwood forests During this period, mills could operate fared somewhat better in some places. efficiently only when adequate supplies were available next to the rail spurs. The Great Depression in the 1930s was exceptionally difficult for the people of In the mid-19th century, clearcutting was the the South, but it helped the native plant primary logging method employed. Modern communities of the region. The Civilian forestry would not become commonplace in Conservation Corps (CCC), established North America until the early 20th century. in 1933 did significant reforestation in Extensive areas of forest were leveled to the South. The formal teaching of forest create pastureland. In many places the sciences in the U.S. matured by the 1920s native forest has never recovered. Forested and 1930s so that an abundance of well- areas surrounding major river ports were trained foresters working for the USFS, cut to fuel steamboats. Vast acreages of state forestry agencies and the CCC were wetlands and river terraces were drained available to supervise and direct the work. or plowed by the mid-19th century, causing The fledgling Forest Service was working significant losses to local biodiversity in to control unauthorized timber cutting some areas. By the 1880s, a broad sector on federal land. Unfortunately, this was of Americans, mostly in the Northeast also the time in which widespread fire and West, were becoming concerned suppression activities began. Although about the unbridled exploitation of the this practice was well intentioned at Nation’s forest and wetland resources. the time, it eventually led to significant declines in native plant communities The evolution of forest protection laws throughout most of the Southeast. and the establishment of national forests in the South parallel the development of The timber industry in the South remained the modern conservation movement in the depressed until the outbreak of World War U.S. The federal government began setting II. At about the same time, serious scientific aside tracts of land as forest reserves when research was started at government and Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act university labs to increase the productivity 7 of forest land. Much of this work focused benefits. These benefits are discussed in on the development of “improved” tree detail in Chapter III by each key issue. selections and cultivation practices. One of the innovations that arose was the The vast majority of Mississippi’s private growing of pines in plantations. Large tracts forestlands are maintained for economic of cutover land, especially in the Coastal returns from the sale of timber as a Plain and Piedmont, would eventually be primary or secondary objective. Other converted to pine plantations. This method major uses include management for focused timber production on developed hunting of game species or for wildlife sites. Although those sites were forever viewing and aesthetics. Most Mississippi altered, this intensive form of silviculture landowners do not have an established, saved many acres of native forest from formal plan such as a Forest Stewardship more traditional timber harvesting. Plan for managing their property. While they do not consider the need for a During the 1950s and 1960s the South management plan until they decide to began to see significant increases in harvest timber, an increasing number immigration and urbanization. Land of Mississippi landowners have varied was developed, and large tracts management objectives and actively seek were fragmented. These trends led technical assistance from state or federal to rapid increases in demand for agencies or conservation organizations. building materials, electricity and Mississippi’s forests and the industry they additional agricultural production. support contribute $11 to 14 billion to the Improvements in technology and state’s economy and directly employ 54,000 mechanization (especially in agriculture) people paying $1.1 billion in wages each and decreasing federal commodity price year. Timber is an important agricultural supports led to significant consolidations crop in the local economy of virtually every in the timber and farm industries. In the county outside the Mississippi Delta. In 1940s, 42 percent of the population in the any year, timber will be among the three South lived on farms. By the 1950s, only most valuable agricultural crops in 65 15 percent of southerners lived on farms to 70 of the 82 counties in the state. After the end of World War II, pine forests Mississippi’s forest products industry in the South, including those on state consists of four major sectors: and federal land, were predominantly z Solid wood products which includes managed for timber production. The z pine and hardwood lumber, plywood, birth of the modern conservation poles, oriented strand board and movement in the 1960s came, in part, other “composite” forest products. as a reaction to concerns about public land management priorities and the lax zz Pulp and paper which includes fine enforcement of environmental laws. writing papers, “liner-board” used for cardboard boxes, tissue and Current Uses/Public Benefits absorbent papers, and market pulp. Today Mississippi’s public and private zz Wood furniture and related products forests provide significant timber which consist mostly of upholstered resources, recreational and tourism wood furniture such as couches, opportunities, aesthetic value, wildlife love seats and recliners. habitat, water quality protection and other environmental, social and economic zz Timber harvesting which includes the harvesting and transportation sector. 8 Because of its abundance of forests, The state has nine national wildlife refuges, streams, lakes, coastal waters and marshes, six national forests, seven national parks, Mississippi is a popular destination 24 state parks, and 42 state wildlife for Mississippians and non-residents management areas, one national estuarine seeking outdoor recreation opportunities. research reserve, over 80,000 acres of Tourism, wildlife associated and forest- coastal preserves and thousands of acres based recreation constitute a substantial of lands managed by the U.S. Army Corps segment of Mississippi's economy. of Engineers that support and serve the According to the National Survey of growing tourism and recreation industry. Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Although not all revenues reported for Recreation report Mississippi residents tourism and recreation are the result of age 16 and above that participated in forest-based activities, the natural beauty wildlife recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife of Mississippi’s forests, combined with viewing) in 2006 and spent $1.1. billion. the state’s diverse topography, make it an increasingly popular vacation destination. The most popular forest-based outdoor recreation activities include hunting and fishing, hiking, horseback riding wildlife observation, photography, camping and enjoyment of nature. Most forest industries that own land in Mississippi recognize the opportunity for outdoor recreation on their lands and some make them available for hunting, hiking and other public recreation use by lease or permit. Recreational use on non-industrial private forestlands is much more limited than on public lands. Fewer landowners are willing to allow the public access to their lands, and an increasing number lease their lands, primarily for hunting, to users Current forest stewardship who also help protect plans on private lands. forest resources. 9 carbon storage, water quality protection and soil stabilization are difficult to quantify, but are becoming increasingly recognized in the state as having critically-important public benefits. Distribution and Abundance

Mississippi is one of the most heavily forested states in the nation. Approximately 65% percent of the total land base is forested, totaling approximately 19.79 million acres. With the exception of the Mississippi Delta, forestry is the predominant land use. The total productive land area of Mississippi is 30,521,018 acres. Pine forests cover 6.62 million acres or 33.45% of the forested area. Hardwood and oak-pine timber types Distribution of public lands in Mississippi combine to occupy over 53.11% of the Often overlooked, the aesthetics forests state’s timberland or 10.5 million acres. provide play an important role in the Land that is regenerating as forest area but economic and social well-being of is yet unclassified is 2.66 million acres or Mississippi. The beauty and serenity 13.45% of the current forested area (MIFI). of public and private forestlands have a positive impact on tourism and economic Forests are located statewide, but the development. Forests adjacent to urban type of forest cover varies dramatically areas and communities can result in across the state. The amount of forest increased property values. They soften cover in Mississippi has actually increased the glare and hard lines of developed over the past four decades, primarily areas, reduce noise and pollution and due to the conversion of agricultural act as sound barriers or screens. land to pine plantations. The following is a map of general land cover and a Other non-timber benefits of forest current list of forested acres by county. resources are ecosystem services such as

10 11 Forested Acres by County in Mississippi

COUNTY FORESTED ACRES TOTAL ACRES % Adams 229,911 311,279 74 Alcorn 165,479 256,857 64 Amite 393,949 468,223 84 Attala 394,103 471,597 84 Benton 183,695 261,462 70 Bolivar 90,926 579,658 16 Calhoun 239,390 376,191 64 Carroll 287,600 405,982 71 Chickasaw 168,153 322,676 52 Choctaw 233,666 268,608 87 Claiborne 260,779 320,894 81 Clarke 383,519 443,753 86 Clay 155,534 266,218 58 Coahoma 79,531 373,143 21 Copiah 397,977 498,702 80 Covington 193,545 265,477 73 DeSoto 136,293 317,835 43 Forrest 236,881 300,831 79 Franklin 329,261 362,704 91 George 237,641 309,513 77 Greene 403,135 459,943 88 Grenada 177,979 287,511 62 Hancock 225,411 320,959 70 Harrison 269,290 385,606 70 Hinds 349,582 561,339 62 Holmes 308,316 488,932 63 Humphreys 39,662 275,892 14 Issaquena 124,454 282,479 44 Itawamba 265,406 345,896 77 Jackson 330,011 470,284 70 Jasper 370,470 433,468 85 Jefferson 286,930 337,423 85 Jefferson Davis 195,232 261,743 75 Jones 338,130 447,718 76 Kemper 421,538 490,859 86 Lafayette 301,538 434,605 69 Lamar 244,054 320,215 76 Lauderdale 376,230 457,744 82 Lawrence 223,798 278,789 80 Leake 293,461 374,532 78 Lee 120,855 289,986 42

12 COUNTY FORESTED ACRES TOTAL ACRES % Leflore 73,419 387,967 19 Lincoln 288,282 376,353 77 Lowndes 178,447 330,540 54 Madison 276,964 474,722 58 Marion 262,703 350,981 75 Marshall 274,175 454,137 60 Monroe 298,870 494,119 60 Montgomery 191,212 260,948 73 Neshoba 277,810 365,770 76 Newton 291,121 370,847 79 Noxubee 262,950 448,023 59 Oktibbeha 211,654 295,571 72 Panola 201,124 451,143 45 Pearl River 387,178 523,956 74 Perry 364,162 416,047 88 Pike 185,404 262,842 71 Pontotoc 167,329 320,570 52 Prentiss 166,048 267,673 62 Quitman 39,769 260,090 15 Rankin 371,027 515,788 72 Scott 296,212 390,528 76 Sharkey 93,721 278,305 34 Simpson 291,850 377,820 77 Smith 329,492 407,724 81 Stone 239,629 286,705 84 Sunflower 36,603 452,541 8 Tallahatchie 140,247 417,215 34 Tate 116,998 262,928 44 Tippah 199,146 294,329 68 Tishomingo 217,093 284,546 76 Tunica 67,475 307,624 22 Union 153,730 266,744 58 Walthall 167,169 258,768 65 Warren 284,075 395,962 72 Washington 81,004 487,198 17 Wayne 443,367 520,607 85 Webster 209,589 270,863 77 Wilkinson 376,566 440,206 86 Winston 319,953 390,387 82 Yalobusha 217,490 316,699 69 Yazoo 300,651 597,704 50

13 community, the wildlife and fish species of concern associated with each type, and identified the major threats and potential conservation actions needed to abate those threats. The community types were also ranked for the purposes of prioritizing the community types that need immediate conservation action. Twenty of the 64 community subtypes are predominantly forested and fall in to nine major forest types: zz Dry-Mesic Upland Forest/Woodlands zz Old Fields, Prairies, Cedar Glades and Pine Plantations zz Mesic Upland Forests zz Bottomland Hardwoods zz Riverfront Forests zz Wet Pine Savannas/ Flatwoods

Forest Communities of Mississippi zz Spring Seeps

A natural community is collectively, all zz Swamp Forests of the organisms inhabiting a common zz Upland Maritime environment and interacting with each other. Woodlands The Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has identified at least 159 natural, These forest community types are organized semi-natural, managed, weedy and probable by the four ecoregions in the state: East community types in Mississippi, which Gulf Coastal Plain (EGCP), the Mississippi includes 77 forest types. Those community River Alluvial Plain (MSRAP), the Northern types have been assigned priority Gulf of Mexico (NGM) and the Upper East conservation ranks indicating their relative Gulf Coastal Plain (EGCP). Ecoregions endangerment or abundance. In 2005, the are commonly considered to be large areas Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, distinguished from surrounding regions by and Parks (MDWFP) led an effort to develop differing biotic and environmental factors the state’s first Comprehensive Wildlife and/or ecological processes. Factors Conservation Strategy (CWCS) as part of that are generally used to distinguish a nationwide effort to improve biodiversity these large regions from one another of wildlife species. The CWCS condensed include differences in climate, physical the 159 community types identified by NHP geography, soils, species or communities. into 64 types with a description of each

14 Ecoregions in Mississippi

15 16 17 18 Forest Community Types and Sub-types by Ecoregion

FOREST COMMUNITY TYPE/ ECOREGIONS* SUBTYPE NGM EGCP UEGCP MSRAP Dry-Mesic Upland Forests/Woodlands ▲ ▲ Dry Hardwood Forests ▲ ▲ Dry Longleaf Pine Forests ▲ ▲ Dry-Mesic Hardwood Forests ▲ ▲ Dry-Mesic Shortleaf/Loblolly Pine For- ests ▲ ▲ Old Fields, Prairies, Cedar Glades and Pine Plantations ▲ ▲ ▲ Northeast Prairie/Cedar Glades ▲ Pine Plantations ▲ ▲ Old Fields and Young Hardwoods (Shrublands) ▲ ▲ ▲ Mesic Upland Forests ▲ ▲ Beech/Magnolia Forests ▲ ▲ Mesic Longleaf Pine Savanna/Forests ▲ ▲ Loess Hardwood Forests ▲ ▲ Lower Slope/High Terrace Hardwood Forests ▲ ▲ Bottomland Hardwood Forests ▲ ▲ ▲ Bottomland Hardwood Forests ▲ ▲ ▲ Riverfront Forests ▲ ▲ ▲ Cottonwood/Black Willow/River Birch Woodlands ▲ ▲ ▲ Wet Pine Savannas/Flatwoods ▲ Wet Pine Savannas ▲ Slash Pine Flatwoods ▲ Spring Seeps ▲ ▲ Hardwood Seeps ▲ ▲ Pine Seeps ▲ ▲ Swamp Forests ▲ ▲ ▲ Baldcypress/Gum Swamp Forests ▲ ▲ ▲ Small Stream Swamp Forests ▲ ▲ Upland Maritime and Estuarine Fringe Habitats ▲ Maritime Woodlands ▲

* Northern Gulf of Mexico (NGM), East Gulf Coastal Plain (EGCP), Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain (UEGCP), Mississippi River Alluvial Plain (MSRAP), Source: Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 2005 19 Forest Community Descriptions Although there are no estimates of the losses of dry-mesic upland forests/ A short description of each of these nine woodlands in Mississippi, it is possible major forest types follows. A full description to envisage their overall condition by of the 20 forest community subtypes is found understanding the extent of development in the current Mississippi Forest Legacy pressure generated on these habitats. Program Assessment of Need referenced Historically, large areas of upland in Appendix A and includes more detailed hardwood and pine forest were converted information on their geographic location, to agricultural croplands and pasture. The size, condition and conservation status. tracts that were chosen were selected Photos are provided courtesy of MDWFP. from the areas containing the most Dry to Mesic (Dry to Moderately productive landforms and soils. Most Moist) Upland Forests/Woodlands landforms of the coastal plain are not excessively steep or isolated and are Upland forests of this type have limited therefore accessible to either timber nutrient and/or moisture availability due management or agricultural usage. to the nature of the soils, which are shallow, coarse-textured and well drained. Today, typical upland forests lack a diverse Subtypes of this category include dry to understory and exhibit very high stem moderately moist hardwood and pine forest densities. Many commercially managed associations. Mixed pine-hardwood habitats forests have been converted to pine are classified as either pine or hardwood plantations and, on national forest lands, subtypes, depending on whether pines the trend for the past 50 years has been or hardwoods are more abundant. Fire to promote pine reproduction over that of played an important role in maintaining indigenous hardwood trees. Furthermore, these habitats by reducing densities of upland forests of Mississippi benefit from young saplings, recycling nutrients and prescribed burning. However, timberlands oxidizing ground litter. This forest type and protected forestlands, such as national includes four subtypes: Dry Hardwood wildlife refuges and lands adjacent to Corps Forests, Dry Longleaf Pine Forests, of Engineers’ reservoirs, are somewhat Dry-Mesic Hardwood Forests and Dry- degraded due to limited exposure to fire, Mesic Shortleaf/Loblolly Pine Forests. though continued efforts to increase usage on national forest lands are promising. Also, reproduction for some important trees, such as several oak species, is hampered by current management systems. In general, it is likely that more than 90 percent of upland forests of Mississippi have been severely degraded or lost and the condition of the remaining could only be regarded as fair. With an increased interest in conservation, possibly through sustainable forestry practices as the single tree select cut system of timber harvesting, and a renewed interest in forest restoration on private and public Dry to Mesic Hardwood Forest lands, these systems may improve. Photo courtesy MDWFP/MMNS

20 Old Fields, Prairies/Cedar Glades and Pine Plantations

This category is a collection of naturally occurring prairies/cedar glades and the artificial constructs of agriculture and forestry (pine and hardwood plantations, young hardwoods and old clearcuts). These subtypes occupy a wide range of landforms, soils and moisture conditions. This type includes three forest subtypes: Northeast Prairie/Cedar Glades, Pine Plantations, Old Fields and Young Hardwoods (Shrublands).

Old Field/Young Hardwoods – Shrublands MDWFP/MMNS There are no accurate records of historical acreage for the Northeast Prairie of Mississippi; however, estimates suggest that approximately 100,000 acres once existed in northeast Mississippi, some of which included Indian old fields. Historically, the prairies were converted to agriculture uses by the early settlers. A majority of the Blackbelt and Jackson prairies remain under cultivation for cropland and pasturage, or have degraded into cedar glades or grassy fields or have converted to woodland. Some areas exhibit erosion scars, chalk outcrops and weedy aspects. Some gullied lands are being re- graded and converted to fescue pastures. Prairie vegetation is still found on many of the eroded sites, although much is in poor condition. The prairies that exist today occur on forest edges, in pastures, utility corridor rights- of-way and road ditches that are maintained in grass by mowing. A large percentage of the land surface area of Mississippi is in various stages of regeneration following logging, cropping, or

21 natural disasters, such as catastrophic fires or windstorms. Land use/land cover classification studies based on satellite imagery indicate that approximately 35 percent of Mississippi is non-forested and is dominated by shrubs, small trees or herbs. The land use/land cover estimates indicate that there are over four million acres of scrub-shrub habitat and nearly seven million acres of pasture/ grassland. As agriculture lands go out of production, there has been steady increase in the acreage of pine plantations. Mesic (Moderately Moist) Upland Forests Beech/Magnolia Forest MDWFP/MMNS Upland forests that are not limited by nutrient or moisture availability are The diversity of the hardwood and pine considered moderately moist. Landforms forest communities have decreased due to supporting this type are those positioned land clearing, overcutting, introduction of on the middle to lower slopes, low flats invasive species, especially Chinese privet, or protected draws. The soils are usually erosion and the suppression of fire over long deeper, moderately fertile, consist of loam periods. Being situated on gently sloping or clay and have higher moisture holding landscapes with relatively deep and fertile capacities than those of dry to moderately soil, the mesic forest types were more likely moist categories. Hydric features, to be converted to agriculture. The loess characteristics of wetland soils, are normally forests of Mississippi, which are found on not found in the upper horizons of these steeper terrain, have remained somewhat soils. Plant communities of mesic habitats intact. However, development surrounding include beech/magnolia, loess hills and the urban centers of Memphis, Vicksburg, lower slope or high terrace hardwoods. and Natchez is causing significant fragmentation of the loess forest community. This type includes four subtypes: Beech/Magnolia Forests, Mesic Mesic longleaf forests once formed an Longleaf Pine Savanna/Forests, Loess extensive blanket across the uplands of the Hardwood Forests and Lower Slope/ piney woods region but were logged during High Terrace Hardwood Forests. the last two centuries. Second growth forests, many of which were converted to other pines, now occupy the undulating hills and plains of the region. Because of the current emphasis on timber production, longleaf pine stands are even-aged and have much higher stocking densities. Although dramatic conversion has occurred, longleaf forests are common on national forest lands and a few private holdings. Also many areas have lost their coverage of beech/magnolia trees. However, beech and magnolia remain as the dominant trees

22 in isolated coves, draws and on steeper Bottomland hardwood forests and swamps terrain, especially across the loess hills make up parts of three forest communities – south of Vicksburg, in patches on national bottomland hardwoods, riverfront floodplain forest lands and on bluffs or upper terraces forests and swamp forests. Bottomland of major river systems. Forest management hardwood forests and swamps were once practices that prevent logging in streamside common in the Southeast. During the last zones, designed to help improve water century, the most dramatic wetland loss quality of streams, also help conserve in the entire nation occurred in forested lower slope/high terrace hardwood forests. wetlands of the Lower MSRAP. Of an The expansion of terrace hardwoods onto estimated 24 million acres of the original slopes is a modern condition resulting bottomland hardwood forests, only 5.2 from the suppression of fire. Conditions million acres (22 percent) remained in 1978. described for dry-mesic upland forests Fifty-six percent of southern bottomland also apply to these forest communities. hardwood and bald cypress forests were lost between 1900 and 1978. Only 15 Bottomland Hardwood Forests percent of the Mississippi Delta remained Bottomland hardwood forests occur in forested and the largest segment remaining river floodplains that receive periodic is the complex of forests about 100,000 inundation from rivers during heavy rainfall acres in size within and surrounding events. Bottomland terraces are irregularly the Delta National Forest. The largest flooded for durations of several days to a patches of bottomland forests are the wet month or more. On these lowland sites, bottomland types that contain few tree the water table remains elevated during species. However, significant areas of the winter and spring seasons and soils bottomland hardwood forests remain in the remain moist through much of the growing mid-South region, mainly situated in the season. Their soils are less acidic and Mississippi River Valley. It is estimated are enriched by the influx of nutrients and that over 2.5 million acres of moderately sediments during floods. Bottomland forests wet bottomland forest and over 0.6 million are considered palustrine. Palustrine acres of very wet bottomland forest remain communities are composed of hydrophytic in the lower part of the MSRAP within plants that grow and persist despite Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana. periodic low oxygen conditions in the soil. The primary cause of bottomland hardwood loss has been conversion of these lands to agricultural production. Additional losses have been caused by construction and operation of flood control structures and reservoirs, surface mining, and urban development. The moderately wet forest types are increasingly fragmented due to improved road access, increased agriculture usage (i.e., pastures and fencing) and closer proximity to development. The wetter tracts are less fragmented but also have lost many of their original functions. They are somewhat less vulnerable to disturbances

Bottomland Hardwood Forest MDWFP/MMNS 23 at the time of sediment deposition. Backwater areas contain finer textured substrates and point bars are sandier. The moisture level of riverfront substrates depends on river stage, which is high in the spring, causing saturation or flooding, and low in the fall, bringing drier conditions.Flooding along the riverfront areas reworks sediments from river banks, sandbars and point bars to form new channels, submerging some areas and build new lands elsewhere. Wet exposed mineral soils provide open habitats for cottonwood and willow to germinate. The dominant trees of these areas germinate best in exposed mineral soil, grow because moisture conditions prevented rapidly once river levels access to these lands. Human activities fall and must tolerate submersion and along streams and other bottomland sediment accumulation. Sedimentation communities have had, and continue to degrades aquatic habitats and kills aquatic have, a negative impact in this habitat. organisms, including fish. Riverfront forests, which control shoreline erosion Riverfront Palustrine (Moist) and intercept eroded soil from upland Floodplain Forests areas, effectively reduce the amount of sediment reaching rivers and streams. Riverfront soils are lower in organic matter This natural community type includes and have higher pH than soils of other one forest subtype: Cottonwood/Black bottomland hardwoods. New soils in Willow/River Birch Woodlands. accretion zones range from fine clay to coarse sand, depending on flow velocities

24 not subject to riverine flooding. Soils are composed of highly weathered, acidic, infertile substrates. The high precipitation and low evapotranspiration rates during the winter and spring season along the Gulf Coast creates a surplus of moisture that gradually percolates through the soil profile. Nutrient-deficient soils develop on these wet flats because nutrients released by weathering are insufficient to replace those removed by leaching. This forest type includes two subtypes: Wet Pine Savannas and Slash Pine Flatwoods.

Cottonwood/Black Willow/Riverfront Forest MDWFP/MMNS Dams, channelization, manmade levees and other modifications have restricted the extent of riverfront forests. Bank erosion- accretion process has been slowed or eliminated along leveed and stabilized portions of the Mississippi River. The modified river environment has caused the riverfront cottonwood and willow communities to regenerate poorly. Although much diminished after river diking, dredging, revetment and channelization projects, the lands between the Mississippi Wet Pine Savanna River and its levees still contain the long MDWFP/MMNS swaths of riverfront forests. It is estimated that over 500,000 acres of cottonwood- It is estimated that less than five percent of willow forest remains in the lower Mississippi the original acreage of wet pine savanna River alluvial plain within Mississippi, habitat remains in the Atlantic/Gulf Coastal Arkansas, and Louisiana. Rivers confined Plain making it one of the most endangered to the western portion of the state and that ecosystems in the country. The lack of flow into the Mississippi River, such as the prescribed burns has had a dramatic Big Black and Sunflower, are dramatically negative impact on the size and distribution impacted by the stages of the Mississippi of wet pine savannas. Fire suppression River, which significantly alters their allowed pines and shrubs to invade and rate of flow and sediment deposition. out-compete the native savanna plants. In the 1960s and 1970s, much of the Wet Pine Savannas/Flatwoods remaining open savanna was converted to pine plantation by planting and ditching Wet pine savannas and flatwoods are (bedding); the latter disrupted the natural found on low, wet, rain-fed coastal flats, water regime. Additional urbanization of foot slopes, depressions, and along the three coastal counties of Mississippi drainageways. Wet pine savannas receive caused significant losses of this habitat. The moisture through precipitation and are 25 savannas of Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Surrounding land uses will affect the Refuge are considered the last remaining condition of spring seeps. In one instance large patches of this diverse community. for example, a seep which supplied moisture to a highly diverse bog was destroyed Slash pine flatwoods have also been by the removal of sand and gravel from adversely impacted by timber harvest, clear- a nearby hill. Surface and gully erosion cutting and plantation monoculture. If fire is will reduce moisture availability to springs excluded, the open, herbaceous character by changing subsurface flow patterns. In of pine flatwoods ground cover is lost, while some instances seeps are less likely to be evergreen shrubs increase in dominance. impacted by humans, as the nature of the Contributing to these factors is the dry saturated soils makes it difficult to carry out mat of acidic pine needles which inhibit standard logging practices or imprudent to the growth of most herbaceous species. construct buildings within the seepage zone. Spring Seeps Swamp Forests Springs form when groundwater resurfaces There are about 600,000 acres of swamp after flowing laterally over less permeable habitat in Mississippi, equivalent to substrates, which place the water table about two percent of the state land area. above the spring. Cracks or sloping Oxbow lakes, low floodplain terraces, impermeable strata tend to direct the flow bottomland flats, backwater areas or towards the spring head. Springs were springheads are common areas to find important watering points for early settlers swamp forest vegetation. The soils of but also have ecological importance, swales or depressions are seasonally to especially by providing a moist environment semi-permanently flooded and remain for amphibians. Today, some springs saturated for long periods throughout the produce commercial spring water. Spring year. Two swamp forest subtypes occur seeps often contain rare plants and may be in Mississippi: Bald Cypress/Gum Swamp the only wetlands available to local animal Forests and Small Stream Swamp Forests. populations during droughts. Larger spring- fed wetlands are considered in swamp, bog or other wetland categories within this AON or within the habitat subtypes of Mississippi’s CWCS. This type includes two subtypes: Hardwood Seeps and Pine Seeps. Seeps occur throughout Mississippi but are infrequently found in the blackland and interior flatwoods regions of the state. They are more abundant in regions with steep terrain such as the loess hills, Tennessee River hills, and the rolling hills of the longleaf pine region. The number of seeps in Mississippi is unknown and no study of their condition is available. The Mississippi Baldcypress/Gum Swamp Forest NHP has documented a limited number of MDWFP/MMNS spring seeps. Some seeps are destroyed Bald cypress/blackgum/water tupelo swamps during highway construction by cutting are found in depressions associated with through the vein that provides moisture or riverine floodplains. The second subtype, by intentionally capping with impermeable small stream swamp forests, includes materials in efforts to preserve the roadbed. 26 wet pond cypress depressions, white cedar swamps and bay swamp forests. Mississippi was once covered with mostly unbroken forest, but centuries of land clearing and development have seriously impacted southern swamplands. Fifteen percent of the land surface area of the Southeastern U.S. was once wetland as compared to five percent nationwide. The Southeast accounted for about 47 percent of the total wetland area and 65 percent of the forested wetland area of the conterminous U.S. Despite dramatic losses, the region currently accounts for about 36 percent of all wetlands and 60 percent to 65 percent of all Maritime Woodland forested wetlands. Although loss rates have MDWFP/MMNS declined recently, most wetland acreage lost The maritime slash pine flatwood/savannas every year in the country is from southern community marks a scenic backdrop to forested wetlands. The increase in the the intertidal marshes along Mississippi’s population of the South has accelerated the coastline. This community occupies ancient rate of wetland losses. Conditions around low shoreline beach ridges and low flats the state range from losses of around situated immediately inland from the tidal 80 percent in the Delta to more natural marshes. It is also found on the terrace conditions in parts of the Pascagoula River levees of many tidal creeks, occasionally watershed. The Pascagoula River is the extending into the midst of sprawling black largest unimpeded main stem river in the needlerush marshes. In accompaniment lower 48 states surrounded largely by with the pine flatwoods, are coastal live bottomland hardwoods and coastal marsh. oak woodlands situated on prominent Maritime Woodlands coastal cheniers and ancient beach ridges that straddle the coast line. The live Maritime woodlands are found on the oak woodlands are comprised of native barrier islands and the mainland coastline live and upland laurel oaks and contain of Mississippi. Many of the barrier islands, an understory often dominated by saw parts of which are considered wilderness, palmetto. Most of the coastal upland habitat remained in good condition prior to has been urbanized. Therefore it is likely Hurricane Katrina which made landfall that the maritime live oak forest is one of the in August, 2005. This hurricane caused rarest communities found in Mississippi. overwash and additional destabilization of the fragile dune systems. The barrier islands The community is fire dependent and are gradually diminishing in size by wave can become brushy and inaccessible to erosion and reduced sand accretion. Exotic pedestrian traffic during long intervals weeds, which have gained footholds on the between burns. Maritime woodlands, mainland in pine flatwoods and savannas, including maritime live oak forests provide live oak woodlands and shell middens, essential points for neotropical migrants as well as on the islands, will continue to staging their trans-gulf journey in the fall and reduce the condition of these landscapes. recuperating upon their return in the spring.

27 Like other coastal states, the use of coastal The following are acreages by general areas as industrial, urban, and residential category from the 2006 Mississippi centers has disturbed much of the natural FIA; figures differ slightly from the landscape surrounding coastal wetlands in more recent MIFI, but indicate general Mississippi. Over half of the U.S. population acreages by forest ownership. lives within 50 miles of the coast and this population is growing at a much faster rate than inland regions. This rapid urbanization Area of Forest Land Owner of our coasts has destroyed a significant by Category amount of coastal wetlands and fringe Area in habitats, degraded coastal water quality, and Category acres severely stressed other coastal ecosystems. (thousand) Forest Ownership Private - Family 12,146 According to MIFI, forest ownership for Private - industrial 5,174 land in Mississippi is primarily by private Total Private 17,320 landowners - families. Traditional family Public – Federal 1,834 legacy subdivides large holdings into Public – State 236 smaller parcels. Families acknowledge Public – Local 233 the legal distinction in ownership of Total Public 2,303 the land but continue to manage the Grand Total Forests (2006) 19,622 parcels as contiguous properties. Mississippi has only recently begun *Mississippi Forests, 2006 transitioning to a digital format for Most of Mississippi’s NIPF forest lands property records. However, corporate are maintained for economic returns and governmental ownership records from the sale of timber as a primary or are available in geo-referenced digital secondary objective. Other major uses formats and MIFI has focused on the include management for hunting of game use of these records to create ownership species such as white-tailed deer, wild descriptions. By process of elimination, turkey, squirrels and other game or for the non-industrial private land ownership wildlife viewing and aesthetics. The patterns can be discerned as follows. majority of Mississippi landowners do not have an established, formal plan for zz Corporate timberland currently accounts for 3.1 million acres. managing their property. While they do not consider the need for a management zz Publicly owned federal timberland plan until they decide to harvest timber, currently accounts for 2.2 million acres. an increasing number of Mississippi landowners have varied management z z Publicly owned state timberland objectives and actively seek technical currently accounts for assistance from state or federal agencies approximately 1 million acres. or conservation organizations. zz Native American timberland in Mississippi amounts to approximately 25,000 acres. zz Approximately 78 percent of forest land in the state belongs to nonindustrial private, forest landowners (NIPF).

28 Threats to Forest Resources

The following are major threats to Mississippi’s forest resources that were identified in the development of this assessment or by other related plans such as the Mississippi CWCS and the FLP AON. Threats, trends and contributing factors are described and discussed in more detail by each key issue area in Chapter III. zz Agricultural Conversion zz Climate Change zz Non-native invasive species (plants/animals) zz Changes in forest structure/ loss of diversity zz Altered fire regime zz Fragmentation/parcelization zz Changes in land ownership (smaller acreages) zz Loss of operational mills in the state zz Changing markets for forest products zz Conversion to offsite forest species zz Incompatible forestry practices (high stocking densities, excessive use of chemicals) zz Second home/vacation home development zz Urban/Suburban development

29 III. Key Issues

Eight key issues were identified by stakeholders as areas or issues of primary Comonents of Each concern regarding Mississippi’s natural Key Issue resources and forest lands. 1. Issue Definition Issue 1: Forest Sustainability zz Forest Resource - What Issue 2: Resource Markets specific physical forest resource Issue 3: Land Ownership Policies is the source of public benefits Issue 4: Forest Health that are at issue here? Issue 5: Stewardship Education zz Public Benefit - What benefit Issue 6: Wildfire Fuel Reduction from this resource makes this Issue 7: Climate Change important to the public? Issue 8: Wildlife zz Key Conditions or Attributes - What key These critical issues were initially identified conditions or attributes of the during the Mississippi Natural Resources forest resource are critical for Planning Conference hosted by Mississippi producing the public benefits? State University (MSU) and were further zz Threats and Contributing refined through the use of surveys and Factors - What factors are stakeholder (agencies, organizations, directly affect key attributes businesses and individuals) meetings or conditions in a way that is coordinated by MFC staff during 2009 – threatening public benefits? 2010. The issues were validated by the What factors are contributing to public in two surveys conducted by the making direct threats strong and MFC in 2009. A description of how the difficult to manage? assessment and strategy process was zz Opportunities - What developed, including public and stakeholder opportunities are available for input, is in Appendix A. Major program directly improving key conditions documents to be incorporated into this or attributes? document by reference are in Appendix B – Detailed Program Guidance. Highlights of 2. Potential Partners the two surveys and public process that led Who are potential partners in addressing to the development of these priority issues this key issue? Note that this is not an are included in Appendix C. exhaustive list of potential partners, but rather a suggested list identified These eight distinct issues also emerged by stakeholders and MFC of possible from the reports, public surveys, literature collaborators who are or should be and stakeholder input as the most important involved in addressing key issues. to Mississippians. Priority areas are identified for each issue and illustrated, 3. Priority Landscapes where possible. Overall strategies to What are the priority areas of the state address each key issue are defined in for this issue? Maps of priority areas the Strategic Issues Matrix in Chapter are included in Chapter IV that were VI. Programs, partners and resources are developed by MFC with partner input for described in Chapter VII - State Forestry each key issue, where relevant. Programs. 30 Issue 1: Forest Sustainability but rarely bought or sold, such as cleansing water and air, regulating climate, providing Sustainable beauty and inspiration; ecosystem goods development of refer to items with monetary value in the forest resources market place, such as wood and food balances protecting products, medicinal plants, tourism, and forests from recreation.) Water quantity and water quality fragmentation, are major criteria for measuring the effects invasive species, of forest management practices. Water fires, insects and quantity refers to the timing and total yield of disease while water from a watershed, while water quality encouraging refers to the suitability of drinking water, economic growth, financial return, cultural recreational uses, and as habitat for aquatic stability, recreational opportunities and organisms and other wildlife. environmental values such as soil and water. The federal definition of “sustainable” from Key Attributes the 2010 National Report on Sustainable Forests means to create and maintain The nature of goods and services provided conditions, under which humans and by forests can change over time as a nature can exist in productive harmony, consequence of changes in social and that permit fulfilling the social, economic economic demands, different technologies, and other requirements of present and and landscape-level or local actions taken future generations of Americans. Today, in the forest to provide those goods and the “triple bottomline” concept, which services. Change in the productive capacity refers to the need to measure progress of forests is often a signal of unsound on three interrelated aspects of a system forest management or unforeseen agents (environment, economy and society) is used affecting ecosystems. Educating the public as a shorthand way to describe agency on potential problems of an unhealthy commitment to sustainability. forest is critical to ensuring long-term forest sustainability. Increasing efforts to reach Forest Resource landowners and the public through a variety of methods to encourage stewardship Forests dominate much of Mississippi, and communicate the value of productive, covering 65 percent of Mississippi’s well-managed forests, opportunities for landscape. Almost 80 percent is in private, managing ecosystem goods and services nonindustrial ownership. Private forest lands (such as water quality and carbon storage), are essential to sustaining both the forest forest health issues resulting from non- products industry and a healthy environment management and estate planning are (clean air and water, soil conservation, examples of targeted education that improve biodiversity). sustainability. Public Benefits Direct Threats and Contributing Productive and healthy forests provide Factors many economic, social and environmental Forest fragmentation and/or forest goods and services. Landowner objectives parcelization, insect and disease problems, for ecosystem goods/services (or natural invasive species, wind events such as benefits) are to establish a market value for hurricanes and tornadoes, and wildfires services such as clean water and clean air. constitute major threats to sustainability. (Ecosystem services or natural benefits refer Parcelization in the context of forestry to services that are valued economically 31 generally refers to division of ownerships Opportunities that result in smaller holdings. This can result from inheritance of forests by multiple Retention of existing industries and the heirs, subdividing large blocks into smaller development and attraction of new ones is forest parcels, or sale of large holdings critical. With new markets and technologies to multiple buyers or to single purchasers emerging, such as bio-energy and carbon who in turn subdivide the land at some sequestration, Mississippi is situated to future date. Absentee ownership tends to promote the abundance of forest resources increase correspondingly. As the number of in the state to potential investors. The landowners increases, the average tract size increase in funding for expansion of certain decreases. forest conservation programs, particularly through USDA Natural Resources Fragmentation refers to physical isolation of Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm forest tracts from one another. It generally Services Agency (FSA), also present results from parcelization of ownership, opportunities to implement sustainable forest but can also be caused by introducing management on more private lands in target infrastructure (roads, power lines, etc.) areas identified through those programs. into the forest or even forest management activities that have the same effect. MFC serves as the lead organization on the Fragmented forest land is most prominent Statewide Forestry Water Quality Protection in areas experiencing urban expansion. Project which evaluates the implementation Fragmentation is accelerated in the wildland/ and use of voluntary Best Management urban interface (WUI) because of the Practices (BMPs) throughout the state. By construction of buildings, roads, and parking monitoring voluntary BMPs on a continuous lots. Fragmented forests cannot provide the cycle and widely distributing the results, same ecological and economic values as BMP implementation rates will increase. forests in rural areas. As fragmentation of Through this program, the MFC is working forest land increases, the number of large with other forestry-related groups to promote forested tracts decreases. water quality and is evaluating practices in areas of streamside management zones With the transfer of property known as (SMZs), woodlands trails and roads, forest “intergenerational transfer,” the number of harvesting, site preparation, tree planting, absentee landowners increases. In addition, landings, wetlands, fire line construction heirs often sell all or part of the property for and revegetation of disturbed forest sites. a variety of reasons, including tax liabilities, Some type of forest activity occurs on lack of interest in ownership, need for nearly 850,000 acres annually in Mississippi revenue, or when real estate value exceeds (approximately five percent of the state’s timber and agricultural revenue potential. forest land). If BMPs are not followed on these acres, the sites will be prone The reduction in forest markets due to the to increased sediment, increased water economic recession makes sustainability temperature and nutrient loading – impacting difficult to attain. Currently out of 140 forest a critical ecosystem service. product mills in Mississippi, 11 are closed and 14 are idle. Also, Mississippi’s growth to drain ratio indicates that the state is growing 35-40 percent more volume than it is consuming. Markets for other forest-based products, such as ecosystem services, are not very developed in the state or Southeast yet. 32 Potential Partners Issue 2: Forest Resource Markets

zz Alcorn State University (ASU) Optimizing zz Landowners with Forest Stewardship Mississippi’s Plans abundant forest zz Longleaf Alliance and water-related zz Mississippi Department of resources requires Environmental Quality (MDEQ) the development zz Mississippi Department of Wildlife, and enhancement Fish and Parks (MDWFP) of diverse markets zz Mississippi Development Authority for natural resource (MDA) products, including, zz Mississippi Forestry Association but not limited to, markets for wood fiber, (MFA) habitat for wildlife and outdoor recreation, zz Mississippi State University (MSU) and natural benefits (also called ecosystem zz MS Prescribed Fire Council services) such as carbon sequestration and zz Pole Industry water quality protection. If resource markets zz Tree Farmers of America are not developed sustainably, negative zz The Nature Conservancy impacts may include degradation of forest zz U.S. Army Corp of Engineers resources and accelerated fragmentation. (USACOE) Primary threats to resource markets fall into zz U.S. Department of Defense three categories: social, economic (job loss, zz USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA) landowner income loss) and environmental. zz USDA Forest Service Forest Resource zz USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Services (NRCS) Of the 19.7 million acres (65 percent) of the Priority Landscapes total land base in forest land, pine is the predominant forest type in the state covering zz Wildfire fuel reduction priority areas 6.6 million acres or 33 percent of the zz Natural Range of longleaf pine timberland. Hardwood and oak-pine types zz Southern Forest Land Assessment combined occupy over 53 percent (10.5 high priority areas million acres). Land that is regenerating as zz High priority watersheds defined by forest covers approximately 13 percent or MDEQ Basin Plans 2.6 million acres. Nearly all (99 percent) of zz Priority areas for invasive species and the forest land is considered available for forest pest programs timber production. The remaining forest land zz MIFI charts of growth and drain area is either unproductive forest land or zz Priority Areas for MS Forest reserved forest land where timber removals Stewardship Program are prohibited by law. The year 2008 marked zz Forest Legacy Areas the 16th straight year Mississippi’s timber zz Forested wetlands production value was over $1 billion, making timber the second most valuable agricultural commodity. The vast majority of forest land is in private ownership, but Mississippi also has six national forests totaling 1.3 million acres. Loblolly-shortleaf pine occupy the largest portion of this acreage (471,576+) followed by oak-hickory (270,669+) and loblolly-slash pine (264,039+). 33 Non-timber forest products include estimated economic impact from activities recreation, water, wildlife and aesthetic such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and values that also contribute immensely to camping increased to $2.7 billion in 2008, the state economy and well-being of the which resulted in 71,435 full and part-time population. According to the 2006 National jobs (hunting = $1.2 billion, fishing = $690 Hunting and Fishing Survey, state residents million, wildlife watching = $791 million). and nonresidents spent $1.1 billion on Operations and businesses that are directly wildlife recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife dependent on forest health, diversity, viewing) in Mississippi. Of that total, trip- function, ecosystem services, and aesthetics related expenditures were $324 million and (including horse trail operations, birding, gun equipment purchases totaled $491 million. ranges, hunting and fishing guide services The remaining $257 million was spent on and outfitters, orienteering recreation, wildlife licenses, contributions, land ownership and watching, freshwater fishing outfitters, and leasing, and other items. consumptive uses such as hunting) create an economic impact of $48 million annually Mississippi’s forests also sequester (capture) in Mississippi in 2008 dollars. significant carbon from the atmosphere. A pine plantation can sequester one to four Forests clearly influence the market value metric tons per acre per year. of real property, particularly with recreation potential. According a 2008 analysis Public Benefits conducted by Mississippi State University Timber provides a very significant source (MSU) of sales of 800 forested (recreational) of revenue for landowners, provides jobs, properties, there was a $654/acre increase contributes to the tax base for counties in sales price because of the recreation and the state and makes a variety of value of forest lands. This represents a 52 wood products available for consumption. percent increase in sale value from sales of Logging, forestry and wood processing lands without wildlife recreation potential. employ approximately 54,000 people and Mature hardwood and mixed hardwood generate $1.1 billion in annual income. forests were primary influential variables Between 1995 and 2006, Mississippi in increases in sale value of lands sold for landowners received more than $10.8 outdoor recreation. billion for their standing timber, or nearly Key Attributes $899 million annually. Forest, logging, primary wood processing and furniture Healthy forest conditions, a balance of age manufacturing contribute $11-14 billion to classes, products and species are critical to state’s economy. timber production and other forest markets. Currently, Mississippi is growing more timber Severance tax collections on forest products than it is consuming (growth to drain). Net were $3,303,444 in 2008. Twenty percent annual softwood growth exceeds removals of severance tax collections, or about by 29 percent and net annual hardwood $662,717, were returned to counties where growth exceeds removals by 22 percent. the timber was harvested. Eighty percent, or about $2,642,755, went to the Forest Approximately 46 percent of Mississippi Resource Development Program (FRDP) to forest land is in the sawtimber product class, provide cost share funds to non-industrial 26 percent in pulpwood and 27 percent in private forest landowners for reforestation regeneration. According to the 2006 FIA, and other forest management practices 59 percent of Mississippi’s southern pine forest stands are artificially regenerated. Nature-based recreation in Mississippi This reflects the economic impact of pine also generates significant revenue. The 34 884,956 acres. This may be the result of reforestation and afforestation efforts occurring in the delta region over the past decade. Still the origins of 72 percent of Mississippi forest stands are natural regeneration. Very few southern pine plantations are in longleaf pine (only 255,000 acres in the southeast Mississippi). However, there are 2,146,254 acres of loblolly pine plantations in Mississippi. Longleaf acreage represents almost a 90-percent decrease from an estimated 2.1 million acres in 1935. Perry, Forrest, and Lamar counties have the most acres of longleaf pine in Mississippi, accounting for almost half of the longleaf acres in the state. According to the MSU Extension Service, compared to other Average growth to drain ratio by Mississippi Institute longleaf-producing for Forest Inventory district. states, Mississippi has the greatest plantations in the state. The sawtimber area percentage of longleaf has increased 17 percent since 1994, while pine sites classified as "superior quality,” the regeneration has decreased 25 percent which is attributable to suitable climate, since 1994. Bottomland hardwood forest topography, and soils. Superior sites are land area, while still predominately occupied capable of producing at least 85 cubic feet by stands of large average diameter, per year when fully stocked. More than 75 appears to be experiencing an increase percent of Mississippi's longleaf pine sites in regeneration. The area of bottomland are superior quality, whereas only 15 percent hardwood forests in the sapling-seedling of longleaf sites outside Mississippi size class increased by 93 percent to are superior. 35 Longleaf pine's primary economic advantage and amelioration that reduces property and is that its tall, straight, knot-free form is ideal resource damage; preventing soil erosion; for producing high-valued poles, which are protection of water quality through filtration worth 30 to 40 percent more than sawtimber. of sediment and pollution; water quantity Longleaf pine stands usually produce a through flood pulse, aquifer recharge and much greater percentage of poles than water supplies; improved air quality through other pine species. An additional benefit carbon sequestration and natural pollution of longleaf pine is that more landowners filtration processes; and habitat for native are interested in planting species native to pollinators (which is estimated at $57 billion the site, and for most upland sites in south annually in U.S.). Mississippi, longleaf pine is the native Threats and Contributing Factors species. Also, longleaf is more resistant than loblolly or slash pine to insects such as the The global recession in recent years has southern pine beetle (SPB) and diseases been a major influence on Mississippi’s such as annosus root rot and fusiform rust traditional and emerging forest resource and is less susceptible to damage from markets, along with changes in industrial hurricanes than other southern pines, ownership, globalization of the forest particularly loblolly pine. Landowners now products industry and an aging domestic have access to knowledge and techniques manufacturing infrastructure that have (machine planted bare root, hand planted occurred over the past two decades. container seedlings, herbicides to control competition, use of fire) to largely overcome A major trend affecting timber markets factors that limit initial reforestation efforts over the past five years has been loss of with longleaf pine. operational mills in the state. A study in 2009 revealed that 8 percent of mills closed and Natural forest communities support native 11 percent were idle. Some mills that were fauna and flora that serve as indicator operating were not at full capacity. The species for ecosystem health, support 2009 harvest value was also 20 percent recreational resources and are valued for lower than in 2008. This sharp reduction aesthetics, cultural heritage and natural in harvest value is mostly attributable to benefits. Today’s remnants of longleaf pine declines pine sawlog production. Also, forests are some of the most biologically no new mills have been built in Mississippi diverse ecosystems outside of the tropics. since 1989 (Bowater plant in Grenada). More than 140 species of vascular plants Mississippi has an aging mill infrastructure can be found in a 1000 square meter, with that could lead to more mill closures. as many as 40 to 50 plants in a square meter. Nearly 900 endemic plant species – Changing market conditions are also a species found nowhere else – are found in factor. A comparison between 2007 and these longleaf pine ecosystems across the 2008 harvest volumes and delivered values Southeast U.S. One hundred and seventy by product category reveals harvest volume of the 290 reptiles and amphibians occurring of pine sawlogs decreased by 11.1 percent, in the Southeast are found in these systems, and its value declined 13.4 percent. Pine with 30 reptile and amphibians that are pulpwood volume increased by 0.2 percent specialists to longleaf systems are federally while the value increased 11.8 percent. The threatened or endangered. volume of pine poles decreased 9.1 percent while their value decreased 15.7 percent. Ecosystem services or natural benefits of Hardwood sawlog volume decreased 4.9 healthy forests that have market values or percent while value increased 2 percent. potential values include: flood abatement Hardwood pulpwood harvest volumes were

36 proportion of the total harvest reflects lower stumpage rates and increased hauling distances for some forest products. Property taxes (on many forest properties) are assessed on a productive potential that will never be realized. In some cases, excessive property taxes limit the owner’s capability to invest in forest improvement practices that would help realize the productive potential. Funding cuts at universities and state agencies have reduced research focused on forestry. There is still the need for research and the transfer of the technology, particularly for new markets such as bio-fuels. The long time frame between the timber inventory in the early 1990’s and the recent 2006 inventory Current wood using mills and mills closed created a situation in Mississippi since 1997 where investors, forest reduced by 1 percent while value increased industry, and other by 19.7 percent. The 2009 harvest value resource decision makers lack timely and was 19.9 percent lower than the 2008 accurate information to make investment value. This sharp reduction in harvest decisions. This may have contributed to value is mostly attributable to declines in the fact that no new major timber using pine sawlog production. The estimated mills have been built since the late 1980s value of the harvesting and transportation in Mississippi, there have been limited sector accounted for 50.7 percent of the upgrades to existing timber using mills, and total harvest value in 2009, an 8.8 percent many other timber using mills have closed. increase over the previous year. This relative With that it is imperative that Mississippi increase in harvesting and transportation maintains and updates its current forest cost and decrease in standing value as a inventory information to facilitate and 37 encourage investment in Mississippi’s forest Mississippi lacks significant other products community and industry. transportation mode such as railroads, which would provide more cost-effective Large reduction in acres of prescribed transportation of wood products while burning due to litigation threats, public reducing pressure on the highway concerns about air quality, higher costs, system. Managers of deep water ports on burning parameters that limit the number of Mississippi’s coast will not allow shipping legal burning days and fewer contractors of wood products to global markets, that supply the service threaten the viability thus restricting the state’s ability to meet of resource markets for both timber and increasing global demand for timber recreation. Mississippi’s Comprehensive products. Currently, all shipping must Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) be containerized and the existing ports’ developed by the Mississippi Department shipping requirements make shipping cost of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) prohibitive. The State of Mississippi controls emphasizes the detrimental effect that loss 2 of the 16 ports, and the remaining 14 ports of prescribed fire has had on certain natural are locally owned and operated. forest communities, particularly longleaf pine in south Mississippi and has allowed the Forest fragmentation and parcelization, or spread of certain invasive plant species such the division of forest land into increasingly as Japanese privet. smaller areas, has an extremely adverse impact on ecosystem processes and The workforce (loggers and buyers) that biodiversity as well as the ability to manage supports the timber harvesting industry has and harvest timber. According to the 2006 seen a significant decrease in numbers in forest inventory, 53 percent of Mississippi’s recent years in response to the changing forest land is in parcels of 20 acres or markets and economic slump. There is a less and 83 percent are in parcels of 100 growing concern that, as economic recovery acres or less. Privately owned tracts are occurs, there may not be a sufficient skilled trending toward smaller parcels which have workforce to meet the new demand for unintended consequences such as the timber resources and the financing that was decreased profitability of harvesting. Highly once available to provide capital for what is mechanized systems require tract sizes of considered a volatile business. at least 40 to 50 acres. With a smaller tract Transportation of forest products continues size, opportunities for harvesting diminish to be a challenge. Tighter restrictions on to a point that is not considered viable for road use and a growing trend toward higher commercial harvest. Forest fragmentation road bonds for timber harvesting, as well as often results from parcelization of ownership, routing of log trucks by county supervisors, but can also be caused by introducing have complicated the process of moving infrastructure (roads, power lines etc.) forest products and increased logging cost. into the forest or even forest management County supervisors often view log trucks activities that have the same effect. as the primary negative influence on roads Only five percent of Mississippi landowners while other types of heavy transportation are have a written forest management plan. not held to the same standard. Bridges may Many landowners do not understand the not have a sufficient weight limit to permit opportunities that proper forest management loaded log trucks to pass safely. In many provide such as increasing revenue potential cases these bridges are not easily identified by managing for multiple uses such as on rural county roads. This does not allow timber, recreation, wildlife habitat and the the county or state to assess the potential potential for other emerging markets such magnitude of this problem. 38 as carbon sequestration. When landowners and county level, has led to a strong lack harvest timber they seldom seek the advice of support and in some cases an unfriendly of consulting foresters or the MFC. attitude toward forest management that is an essential part of sustaining healthy forests Coupled with lack of management on private and Mississippi’s economy. lands, there is a lack of education among landowners concerning issues affecting both Opportunities existing and emerging forestry markets. Many landowners are aware of carbon and Opportunities for improving forest markets bio-fuels markets, but are uncertain of their and forest management fall into four main future potential value. Some estimates categories: Certification programs, cost- project that carbon offsets could be a $60 share programs and existing and emerging billion market in 2012, on a par with U.S. economic opportunities, landowner corn and wheat markets. This will make education, and urban forest management. forestry mitigation opportunities more The following is an overview. important in the future. Although prices on Certification Programs carbon contracts are fairly low at present, there is potential for them to increase as The American Tree Farm System® power plants and heavy industries seek to (ATFS) certifies land management to the offset their generation of carbon dioxide American Forest Foundation’s Standards through sequestration programs. To date, of Sustainability. Under these standards, Mississippi has failed to develop the bio- private forest landowners must develop a fuels market on par with other southeastern management plan and pass an inspection states such as Florida, Alabama and by an ATFS volunteer forester. ATFS has Georgia. certified 24 million acres of privately-owned forest land managed by over 90,000 family Public and recreationists attitudes regarding forest landowners, making it the largest changing forest types influence resource private forest conservation program in the markets sometimes create conflict between U.S. Currently in Mississippi, there are 3,200 different market users. For example, landowners who participate with 2 million expanding acreages of plantation pine acres in the ATFS. ATFS certification is free over the past two decades in areas for landowners. that were once covered by mixed pine- hardwood, hardwood-pine, or hardwood The Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI) forest stands are seen as a negative by Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to the public, particularly recreationists. promoting sustainable forest management. Negative attitudes regarding certain SFI works with conservation groups, local aspects of forest management have communities, resource professionals, evolved based on both real and perceived landowners, and many other organizations experiences such as “ugly cutovers,” and individuals who share its passion for expansive loblolly pine plantations, and a responsible forest management. The SFI history of excessive clearcutting of mature forest certification standard is based on bottomland hardwood stands. While some principles that promote sustainable forest public criticism is merited, a general lack management, including measures to protect of public understanding and appreciation water quality, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, of the value and opportunities of good species at risk, and forests with exceptional forest management exists. This failure to conservation value. The standard is used understand the impact that forestry has on widely across North America, and has strong Mississippi’s economy, both at the state level acceptance in the global marketplace, resulting in a steady supply of third-party 39 certified wood from well-managed forests. claiming to sell FSC certified products have This is especially important because of the tracked their supply back to FSC certified growing demand for green building and sources. This chain of custody certification responsible paper purchasing at a time assures that consumers can trust the FSC when only ten percent of the world’s forests label. are certified. FSC’s model of certification allows products The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that flow from certified forests to enter the is a non-profit organization devoted to marketplace with a credential that is unique. encouraging the responsible management Any FSC-labeled product can be traced of the world’s forests. FSC sets high back to a certified source. This aspect of standards that ensure forestry is practiced the system is the basis for any credible in an environmentally responsible, socially certification system and is the link between beneficial, and economically viable way. consumer preference and responsible, on- Landowners and companies that sell the-ground, forest management. timber or forest products seek certification as a way to verify to consumers that they Note that although SFI and FSC present have practiced forestry consistent with opportunities for certification, they are cost FSC standards. Independent, certification prohibitive to the majority of landowners. organizations are accredited by FSC to carry Cost-Share Programs for Forest out assessments of forest management Management Practices to determine if standards have been met. These certifiers also verify that companies A variety of federal and state cost-share programs are available in Mississippi to

Examples of Federal Forest Management Cost-Share Programs in Mississippi

Conserving Implementing Curbing Soil and Establish Managing Forest Create Forest Farm Bill Agreement Water Water Wildlife Forest Management Restoring Management Program Agency period Erosion Resources Habitat Lands Plans Wetlands Plans Environmental Quality More than 1 Incentives year, but less EQIP NRCS than 10 years √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Wildlife Habitat More than 1 Incentive year but less Program NRCS than 10 years √ √ √ Conservation Reserve Program CRP FSA 10-15 Years √ √ √ √ √ Conservation Stewardship Program CSP NRCS 5 Years √ √ √ Forest Legacy Program USFS Permanent √ Wetlands Reserve Permanent Program or 30 year WRP NRCS easements √ √

40 help landowners finance the implementation prescribed burning, invasive species control, of forest management practices for timber and various herbicide treatments. The production, recreation, wildlife habitat, soil program requires a forest management and water quality protection and aesthetics. plan, usually written by an MFC forester. The following table lists some of the more Plans for tracts of less than 250 acres are common federal programs and funding incorporated into Forest Stewardship Plans. sources. A short description of state cost- share programs follows. It is important In 1999, the Mississippi Reforestation Tax to note that funding of the programs can Credit (RTC) was implemented. RTC allows change rapidly, as demonstrated in the a Mississippi taxpayer who reforested 2008 Farm Bill where some programs were Mississippi land to claim a 50 percent removed and others increased or decreased tax credit against approved costs. The in funding. A description of additional cost- maximum amount of tax credit that could be share programs available in Mississippi is taken during his or her lifetime is $75,000 included in Chapter VII. per taxpayer, $10,000 limit per year. The credit is claimed against the lesser of actual State Cost-Share Opportunities cost or average cost as established by the Mississippi Forestry Commission. The The Forest Resource Development Program RTC can be used by private individuals, (FRDP) is a state program funded by groups and associations, including trust severance tax. Landowners are approved property and estates. It cannot be used by on first-come, first-served basis. Funds can corporations that manufacture products or be used for a variety of silvicultural practices their subsidiaries, or by public utilities or such as reforestation of pine and hardwood, their subsidiaries. A written reforestation

Examples of Federal Forest Management Cost-Share Programs in Mississippi

Conserving Implementing Curbing Soil and Establish Managing Forest Create Forest Farm Bill Agreement Water Water Wildlife Forest Management Restoring Management Program Agency period Erosion Resources Habitat Lands Plans Wetlands Plans Environmental Quality More than 1 Incentives year, but less EQIP NRCS than 10 years √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Wildlife Habitat More than 1 Incentive year but less Program NRCS than 10 years √ √ √ Conservation Reserve Program CRP FSA 10-15 Years √ √ √ √ √ Conservation Stewardship Program CSP NRCS 5 Years √ √ √ Forest Legacy Program USFS Permanent √ Wetlands Reserve Permanent Program or 30 year WRP NRCS easements √ √

41 prescription prepared by a graduate forester Mississippi is developing a strong ecosystem of a Society of American Foresters (SAF)- market that includes both consumptive and accredited institution or by a forester non-consumptive uses and has an estimated registered under the Mississippi Foresters total economic impact for Mississippi of $2.7 Registration Law of 1977 is required for billion in 2008 dollars. the use of the Mississippi RTC. While the Mississippi RTC is an enticing incentive for Wood products are an abundant renewable reforestation, it does not negate the use of resource that can be stored in various forms the federal tax recovery provisions. and is available throughout the state. It is an attractive form of renewable energy Economic Opportunities for Forest for the developing bio-fuel market. The Management and Markets federal renewable fuels standard calls for producing 30 percent of the nation’s energy Mississippi’s traditional forest markets will from biomass by the year 2030. Based on continue to be strong assets for the state. energy consumption information compiled by Logging, forestry and wood processing Redux, in 2003 Mississippians consumed an employees approximately represent 54,000 estimated 1,183.8 trillion British thermal units people who provide $1.1 billion in income. (BTUs) of energy, ranking 23rd in the nation. Landowners received more than $10.8 billion Coal accounted for 35 percent of the total for their standing timber betwee1995-2006, energy consumed with natural gas supplying or nearly $899 million annually. Forest, 42 percent, nuclear supplies 19 percent, and logging, primary wood processing and petroleum 1 percent. Renewable sources furniture manufacturing contribute $11 to14 supplied only three percent of the state’s billion to state’s economy. needs. Conversely, Mississippi emits 62.13 Though the past three years were difficult million metric tons per year of carbon dioxide th for traditional forest markets, primary forces which ranks 34 nationally. driving Mississippi’s timber markets do appear to be improving. U.S housing starts are expected to reach an annual rate of one million units by 2011. There are a number of factors expected to help bolster new home construction such as historically low home mortgage rates and the home buyer tax credit. Also, homeowner improvement spending is expected to bottom during the first quarter “Mississippi’s annual average increase in of 2010 and then modestly increase. electricity consumption from 1980-2005 was These expectations are based on a rise 2.6 percent, slightly higher than the U.S. in existing home sales and stabilization in average of 2.2 percent. With manufacturing existing home prices. Given these expected edging out agriculture as the state’s largest improvements in the housing sector, demand industry, state energy use and per capita for wood products should increase gradually. 42 energy consumption will most likely continue benefits provide incentives to participate in to rise. The state will undoubtedly need new some form of forest management. sources of power to keep up with this growth in the years ahead. The following chart Although prices on carbon contracts are illustrates Mississippi’s growing electricity fairly low at present, there is potential for demand from 1980-2007.” (Advance them to increase as power plants and heavy Mississippi). industries need to offset their generation of carbon dioxide through sequestration The July 2008 website edition of Forbes programs. Carbon credits are trading for ranked Mississippi among the top five states $3.50 in other states. Landowners, on in the nation for potential biomass energy. average, can expect $10 -20 per acre in The Mississippi Development Authority’s revenue from the sale of carbon credits in web page promotes biomass as offering the future. significant opportunities for Mississippi’s future. The state produces or has the Also, in 2007, a convergence of interests led capability to produce sufficient feed stock for to the formation of the America’s Longleaf building and sustaining markets for energy, Restoration Initiative (the Initiative) as an fuel, and other products. Wood products umbrella for the collaborative efforts of are the principal source of biomass in the more than 20 state and federal agencies, state and currently are being used to make stakeholders and organizations. The 15-year paper, wood products, mulch and as a fuel goal for the plan is an increase in longleaf to generate steam and electricity. acreage from 3.4 to 8.0 million acres, with more than half of this acreage targeted in Assuming a heating value of 8,000 BTUs range-wide “Significant Geographic Areas” per dry pound, this resource could provide in ways that support a majority of ecological up to 64 trillion BTUs of renewable energy and species needs. potential each year. Estimates reflect a 6.8 million dry tons per year of wood available Landowner Education for bio-mass use. This reflects a 70 percent Education opportunities are vital to recovery of wood residuals from harvesting encouraging more active management practices. At present residual wood left on- of private forest lands for multiple uses. site following harvesting is potential energy Existing MFC efforts that offer the most lost, representing 69 percent of the biomass potential for improving forest management available. Energy markets work off stable, and expanding resource markets are: long-term, fixed-price supply, which is the expectation, when moving into generating Minority outreach efforts such as the energy from bio-fuels. But, due to factors Underserved Landowner Outreach such as logistics, weather, wood storage program provide assistance to underserved characteristics, and mill expectations, that is landowners in Mississippi. This program not how traditional forest utilization markets has three primary goals: 1) to provide work. Also, Mississippi has yet to allow the outreach support and technical assistance practice of “net metering” so that companies to underserved landowners; 2) to encourage can economically generate electric power young people to seek careers in forestry; and sell it to the grid. The development of and 3) to work with Alcorn State University woody biomass products will provide future (ASU) to develop and/or enhance projects of jobs and income, decrease energy costs, mutual forestry interest. and provide landowners an opportunity to Environmental Field Days are held every grow trees on a short rotation. All of these fall and spring. These events are sponsored jointly by the NRCS, MFC and MDFWP to 43 target reaching 5th grade students. They events also encourage the practice of tree focus on the significance of stewardship of planting and stewardship of forest resources forests, soil and water and present a long- particularly in urban areas. Because these term effort to improve public understanding popular programs reach large numbers of and appreciation of the benefits of natural people, they represent good opportunities resources and forest and natural resource for improving public awareness about the management. importance of forest management and the variety of market values forest resources Both the MSU and ASU Extension Services provide. host a variety of training classes for both landowners and resource managers. Topics Potential Partners include how to thin trees, forestry taxation, z carbon credit markets, and invasive species z Alcorn State University (ASU) z control and others. The MSU ES also hosts z Alcorn State University Extension the weekly Farm and Family Radio which Service (ASUES) z show is dedicated to forestry issues and z Longleaf Alliance z current events. z Electric Power Associations zz Forest Products Industry The Mississippi Professional Logger zz Members of Banking and Financing Training Program was first established in Community 1996 to assist logging business owners zz Mississippi Association of County and loggers in their profession. Logging is Supervisors (MAS) an ever-changing industry which brings a zz Mississippi Consulting Foresters high demand for new training on logging zz Mississippi Department of practices. This professional program along Environmental Quality (MDEQ) with other associations provides the most zz Mississippi Department of up-to-date educational programming needed Transportation (MDOT) to become certified in the state of Mississippi zz Mississippi Department of Wildlife, and will be essential as certification Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) programs evolve. This educational zz Mississippi Development Authority programming is currently centered on the (MDA) Sustainable Forestry Initiative. zz Mississippi Economic Development Council (MEDC) Urban Forestry Opportunities zz Mississippi Forestry Association and The Transportation Enhancement Tree County Forestry Associations (MFA/ Planting Program is a statewide initiative CFA) to plant trees for the purpose of enhancing zz Mississippi Forestry Commission transportation. The program is administered (MFC) by the MFC with financial support from the zz Mississippi Gulf Coast of Economic Mississippi Department of Transportation Alliance (MDOT) and advisory support from the zz Mississippi Institute for Forest Mississippi Urban Forest Council, Inc. Inventory (MIFI) (MUFC). zz Mississippi Loggers Association (MLA) Urban and Community Forestry Assistance zz Mississippi Prescribed Fire Council Challenge Grant Program is designed to zz Mississippi State University Extension aid in the development of long-term, self- (MSUES) sustaining urban and community forestry zz Mississippi State University College programs. Other programs and events of Forest Resources (MSU CFR) such as Tree City USA and Arbor Day 44 zz Mississippi State University Forest forest land, property ownership changes and Wildlife Research Center (MSU along with land management objectives. FWRC) Increasing property taxes and urban zz Mississippi State University, National expansion are significantly threatening Resource Enterprises (NRE) productive private forest land ownership in zz Mississippi Urban Forest Council Mississippi. zz SUM Task Force zz USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) Developing a natural resource policy zz USDA Forest Service (USFS) that reflects a wide variety of forest land zz USDA Natural Resource management objectives is challenging Conservation Service (NRCS) due to diversity of landowners in the state zz USDA, Forest Service, Southern who have a broad array of management Research Station (Forest Inventory objectives such as producing traditional and Analysis) forest products, managing fire, managing zz Wood fuel industry and conserving wildlife, and enhancing recreation and aesthetics and protecting Priority Landscapes water quality and water resources. zz Statewide Forest Resource zz Mill allocation by type and status, The majority of Mississippi’s private forest including new emerging market mills lands (70 percent) are family forests. zz Growth to Drain – Areas of state According to the 2008 National Woodland where growth is out pacing usage Owner Survey, there are 163,000 family zz Limited railroad lines in Mississippi forest landowners in Mississippi and 69 percent of those are at least 75 percent z z Limited deep water ports in forested. Most family forest landowners in Mississippi the state have relatively small holdings (less zz Longleaf acres present /historic than 100 acres), which they have held for acreage more than 10 years. Issue 3: Land Ownership Policies Public Benefits Because most of Forest landowners maintain ownership for a Mississippi’s forest variety of reasons. Some utilize their forest land is in private, land for economic pursuits such as timber nonindustrial production. Others use their forest land ownership, for recreational enjoyment, ranging from maintaining a the traditional outdoor recreation such as productive and hunting, fishing and camping, to aesthetics, sustainable future wildlife watching and hiking. Many for Mississippi’s Mississippi forest landowners have a deep- forests and other rooted conservation land ethic that supports natural resources is traditional Southern quality of life issues. In dependent on the development of a natural addition, these landowners strongly defend resource policy structured to promote and private property rights. maintain private ownership. Without actively managed private forest lands, the availability Key Conditions or Attributes of raw material needed to support the forest Societal pressures are creating significant products industry decreases. If incentives challenges to maintaining traditional are not in place to retain privately owned 45 forest management objectives. Although objectives, changes in land use or outright Mississippi is largely a rural state, forest sale of property. For non-consumptive ownership is increasingly being affected products such as ecosystem services, more by changing landownership objectives and research is needed to establish acceptable values. Traditional forest management market values. Without a market value, economic objectives are being replaced by there is no financial incentive for private non-traditional management objectives, such landowners to manage for these benefits as ecosystem goods/services and other either. non-timber management objectives. The Threats and Contributing Factors pressure on landowners to maintain forest land use and ownership increases in areas Changes in forest cover and forest types affected by urban expansion. due to the influence of parcelization, For some landowners, a tax burden is fragmentation and urbanization can created when family forest land passes significantly impact forest quality and a to the next generation (intergenerational forest’s ability to provide timber, wildlife transfer). Each time property is transferred habitat, recreation, and environmental due to intergenerational transfer, the amenities. These influences can change a number of absentee landowners increases. landowner’s forest management objectives In addition, heirs often sell all or part of and can lead to the landowner selling or the property due to a variety of reasons, changing the land use of the property. including taxes, no interest in owning the Increasing parcelization and fragmentation property and real estate value exceeds of forest land have negative impacts on: timber and agricultural revenue potential. zz Economic contributions of forests and Globalization of the timber industry, loss forest products of wood products manufacturing facilities zz Clean water production and increasing property values are factors zz Forest-based recreation that can adversely impact the economic zz Hunting and non-consumptive wildlife feasibility of maintaining forest ownership for enjoyment the private, nonindustrial landowner. Recent zz Biological diversity forest inventories in Mississippi reveal that zz Air quality improvement 30 percent more timber is available for zz Aesthetics harvesting without affecting the sustainability zz Other “quality of life” values of the forest resource. One reason for this increasing surplus of merchantable timber is Urbanization pressures (e.g., land value the lack of new and expanded forest product increases near population and recreation industries. centers, increased regulations are not conducive to forest management, etc.) The sustainability of forest-based revenue significantly influence forest landowners produced by both consumptive and non- to sell property or convert their property to consumptive products on privately owned another land use. Urbanization will continue forest land is dependent on traditional and to expand, resulting in an increasingly non-traditional markets. Obviously, if private fragmented forest land base. Urban forest landowners do not have a market for expansion results in the permanent removal their timber, there is no financial incentive of natural forest cover for new residential, to continue making long-term investments commercial, industrial, and governmental in the management of their forests. This developments. Once the forest cover is can lead to changing land management removed for urban development, it is rarely, if ever, re-established to forest cover, and 46 the amount of quality of life benefits provided 2. Active landowners with ecosystems by the forest cover are substantially reduced, goods/services and/or non-traditional if not altogether completely lost. management objectives. 3. Passive landowners with no forest When landowners with an urban influence management objectives. and background acquire forest land in 4. Underserved landowners with no access rural areas, their management objectives to or assistance from natural resource are sometimes contrary to traditional government agencies. forest management objectives. But, these landowners can have significant influence Natural resource agencies, organizations, on legislative and local land use regulations and individuals working with private and ordinances, which can adversely impact landowners will need to develop new traditional forest management practices approaches to providing advice and (e.g., prescribed burning, timber harvesting, assistance to the myriad of forest use of chemicals for forest management, landowners with different and sometimes etc.). These impacts are most prominent opposing land management objectives. in the area of urban expansion called the Tools that are available or are evolving wildland/urban interface or WUI. include changing land use and resource policies being developed at the local, state Forest landowners sell all or part of their and national levels, new information and property for many reasons: to offset increase education programs targeted to diverse in property tax, because they cannot afford types of forest land owners and new and inherited property, to pay off debts or other revised landowner incentive programs financial obligations, and/or when the value offered by the state and federal agencies. of the property has greatly increased due to encroaching real estate and commercial Potential Partners development. Changes in land use z regulations that do not support active forest z Alcorn State University Extension management objectives can also influence Service (ASUES) z some landowners to sell their property. z County Forestry Associations (CFA) zz Financial institutions (forestry and When individuals are searching for forested land financing) property to purchase, they are often zz Forest industry representatives motivated by factors such as investment zz Landowner organizations opportunity (land value speculation, timber zz Mississippi Association Conservation revenue, etc.), outdoor recreation (traditional Districts and non-traditional), to own/build a “place in zz Mississippi Association of Consulting the woods,” privacy and to build an estate to Foresters pass along to children or other heirs. zz Mississippi Association of Supervisors (MAS) Opportunities zz Mississippi Department of Agriculture Any approach to addressing land and Commerce ownership policies in the future requires an zz Mississippi Department of understanding of the different categories of Transportation (MDOT) forest landowners and consideration of their zz Mississippi Department of Wildlife, respective land management objectives. Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) Four categories of landowners are: zz Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation zz Mississippi Forestry Association 1. Active landowners with economic and (MFA) traditional forest management objectives. zz Mississippi Forestry Association 47 Government Affairs committee (MFA) zz Rural forested areas of the state – zz Mississippi Forestry Commission by watershed (MFC) zz Statewide, all property owners zz Mississippi Legislature Issue 4: Forest Health zz Mississippi Loggers Association (MLA) Forest health zz Mississippi Planning and refers to the Development Districts capacity of a forest zz Mississippi State Tax Commission community across zz Mississippi State University Extension the landscape Service (MSUES) for renewal, for zz National Woodland Owners recovery from Association (Mississippi chapter) a wide range of zz Natural Resources Conservation disturbances and Service (NRCS) for retention of its zz Northeast Mississippi Natural ecological resiliency, while meeting current Resources Initiative and future needs of people for desired levels zz Private forestry consultants of values, uses, products, and services. zz Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&D Forest Resource Councils) Across Mississippi, native and non-native zz Southern Forests Network invasive flora and fauna have caused zz USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA) adverse impacts on the value, productivity, zz USDA Forest Service (USFS) functionality and ecosystem services of Priority Landscapes forest communities on both public and private lands. Maintaining forest health zz Increasing urbanization and (Wildland is especially challenging on private, Urban Interface) WUI areas nonindustrial lands which constitute the majority of forest lands in the state. ||DeSoto/Tate Counties | Tupelo According to the most recent state forest | inventory, 53 percent of private forests are in ||Jackson Metro | Meridian tracts less than 20 acres, limiting landowners | ability to actively manage properties, to ||Hattiesburg/Laurel | Gulf Coast successfully control invasive flora and fauna, | to manage for diversity or to effectively zz Mississippi Forest Legacy Areas as manage their forest land at all. identified in the Mississippi Forest Legacy Program Assessment of Need Native species such as the southern pine (2007 – 2012) beetle (SPB), which exhibits periodic outbreaks causing rapid and widespread ||Northeast MS tree mortality, pose a greater threat than ||Central MS ever due to the increased abundance, ||South MS distribution and susceptibility of its preferred hosts, loblolly and shortleaf pine. Non- z z Priority forest communities ranked native invasives like the recently introduced in the Mississippi Comprehensive redbay ambrosia beetle and associated Wildlife Conservation Strategy laurel wilt disease have the potential to virtually wipe out redbay in Mississippi and other nearby states and may significantly 48 impact other native plants in the Lauraceae Key Conditions or Attributes family. Threats by other non-native species Native tree species, diversity, varied age already established and spreading within the classes and structural stages are key U.S. include the emerald ash borer, Asian conditions for healthy forests. Mississippi’s longhorned beetle, Eurasian woodwasp, forest communities include all of the sudden oak death and thousand cankers organisms inhabiting a common environment disease (TCD) of black walnut. These and interacting with each other (plants, threats pose great challenges in keeping birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, these and other potential new pests out invertebrates, micro organisms and other of state borders, and in mitigating their wildlife). Natural forest communities are impacts if and when they should arrive. adapted to local conditions and those that Non-native invasive plant species such have not been impacted by non-native, as cogongrass, kudzu, Chinese tallowtree invasive species, disease or insects or and others have exhibited escalating removal of trees are more stable and impacts as infestations and have spread functional. virtually unabated throughout the state for years and even decades, until some Maintaining native forest communities by recent efforts of late. Other issues of limiting the growth of invasive species and concern regarding forest health involve spread of insects and disease and ensuring lack of forest structure (the complexity of the adequate structure, diversity and ages the vertical and horizontal forest), and age of forest stands is critical to forest health. and species diversity in some areas. Protecting forest health requires active planning and forest management on public Public Benefits and private forest lands in rural and Healthy, diverse forests provide multiple urban areas. public benefits including timber, recreation, Threats and Contributing Factors aesthetics, soil, air and water quality protection, and wildlife habitat. Clearly, Invasive Plants when the health of the forest is threatened In recent years, public attention has focused or compromised, so are organisms that on invasive plants in Mississippi because of depend on it, including humans. Invasive the increased efforts to control the spread of plants displace native plant species, alter cogongrass. Cogongrass, kudzu, Chinese the physical and chemical properties of tallowtree and Japanese climbing fern are the soil and can result in decreased tree the four most damaging plants to the overall regeneration by shading the forest floor health of Mississippi forests. which can significantly impact the economic value of timber as well as the ecological The spread of these invasive plant species functions of the forests to support wildlife is increasing in Mississippi. Agriculture species, filter pollutants from water, and equipment, forestry logging equipment, fire prevent soil erosion. Diseases and insect suppression equipment, highway mowing damage can also diminish or destroy natural equipment and construction equipment forest communities, and can be devastating (primarily dirt moving) have all contributed to timber values, recreation, aesthetic values to the increased distribution of these plants. and property values. Diversity and structure Most forest landowners also lack awareness of forest stands provides more abundant about these problematic plants and how and diverse habitats and food sources for to avoid or control them. The impact to wildlife species. the farmers and landowners of Mississippi is immense. Species such as cogongrass lower production, limit the options of 49 management for the forest landowner for of the redbay ambrosia beetle in Jackson regeneration, create fire hazards and these County, Mississippi, and the emerald ash plants outcompete the native vegetation. borer (EAB) in Missouri and Kentucky. Cogongrass also produces a toxin that Some trapping under the Early Detection prevents any other grass species from Rapid Response (EDRR) programs is done growing, thus eliminating native species from annually. Thus far the redbay ambrosia certain sites and altering ecosystems. beetle is the only new threat that the state has had to address. Presently, studies Due to the high cost of treatment and the are being conducted in Jackson County to long-term commitment required to eradicate determine how the redbay ambrosia beetle kudzu, many landowners do not attempt to entered Mississippi, the extent of the spread eliminate this pest from their property. The and possible avenues of response to this use of Chinese tallow trees in the urban pest. This non-native insect has the potential landscape has accelerated the spread of this to render redbay and sassafras trees extinct species across the state. from the Mississippi landscape. The EAB Insects has not been identified in the state yet, but EDRR trapping is presently being conducted Invasive, non-native pests have not been across the state to detect any entrance a high priority until 2009 with the discovery

The August 2009 distribution map shows the unusual jump of the redbay ambrosia beetle from the East Coast to Mississippi.

50 into the area. Movement of firewood from Many areas in Mississippi are at a moderate one infested location to another location to high hazard for SPB attacks. The 1988 has been the main avenue for this insect to court-mandated requirement to manage move across county and state lines. It has national forest lands to promote survival of been documented that human movement the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker of firewood contributed to the spread (RCW) may serve to aggravate the SPB of this pest in Florida. This finding has problem. Currently, rotation ages have been helped develop the “Don’t Move Firewood” extended and hardwood mid-story trees campaign across the South. have been eliminated in RCW foraging The SPB has been the most destructive areas and in colony sites. Some managers insect killer of pines in the Southeastern anticipate that these manipulations may U.S. This native bark beetle attacks and increase susceptibility to SPB infestations kills southern pines in an area roughly long-term. Others predict that the reduced approximating the geographical range of basal areas desired for these sites might just the shortleaf pine. The SPB population help in the prevention of SPB attack. The periodically increases to epidemic cavity trees may serve as focal points for proportions. When this occurs, the area potential infestation. suffers severe timber losses. Since Mississippi started keeping records in 1971 on beetle outbreaks, there were several years where the losses approached $15 million dollars and higher.

Male and Female Southern Pine Beetle Courtesy of Bugwood Network Mississippi was a “battle ground” for the fight against the SPB until 1996. Since then, there have been no major outbreaks, and the 2009 flight surveys indicated no active beetle spots anywhere in the state. Establishing pine plantations on idle pasturelands and converting upland hardwood areas to pine plantations is a continuing trend on private lands in the state. These cover type conversion trends will not help reduce the risk of Mississippi timberlands to the SPB.

Southern pine beetle hazard risk rating

51 Courtesy of www.barkbeetle.org

Forest Structure and Diversity (DBH), thus making older trees, often called “over mature,” less preferable for timber Mississippi forests are composed of a variety production. The use of more fabricated of age classes and successional stages. lumber created from fiber technology or During the 2006 state inventory, 137 tree chips that can be produced from smaller species were measured. trees has resulted in fewer markets for Most forest land is occupied by southern landowners with stands of large timber size pine forest consisting of young stands (1 classes. These recent market trends create to 20 years old), while a large percentage challenges as well as opportunities for of bottomland hardwood forest and upland private landowners and can impact forest pine/mixed hardwood forest are in stands health. Mill closings affect timber prices older than 20 years. While high diversity offered to landowners, which in turn may and structure provide benefits to wildlife and discourage any active forest management often enhance recreational experiences and on some private lands. values, mature, more even-aged, younger Other recent economic trends affect diversity forest stands are sometimes more desirable in some forest stands. For example, during when timber management is a priority. For 2008, the harvest volume of pine sawlogs instance, most mills in the state cannot cut in Mississippi decreased 11.1 percent, pine timber over 24” in diameter at breast height pulpwood volume increased 0.2 percent, 52 hardwood sawlog volume decreased 4.9 partner agencies to implement education/ percent and hardwood pulpwood volume awareness programs (particularly within decreased by 1 percent. The primary reason areas identified for suppression or for these decreases was the troubled eradication of pests and plants) and on-the- residential construction sector and the ground control and eradication measures. record-setting fuel prices during 2008. If it is Continued funding of existing programs not economically feasible to thin a pine stand through the USFS is critical. or harvest trees on a planned schedule, some landowners abandon or delay harvest Insects that promotes healthy forest stands. The MFC has taken the lead in Mississippi Some consider the USDA’s Conservation in obtaining funding through the USFS Reserve Program (CRP) administered for redbay ambrosia beetle research in by the FSA peak signup years during the Jackson County conducted by Dr. John mid-1980s and 1990s as a “scourge of Riggins, Assistant Professor of Forest monoculture” that resulted in establishment Entomology, Department of Entomology and of many pine plantations on former Plant Pathology at MSU. The Mississippi agricultural lands in Mississippi. While Department of Agriculture and Commerce plantation pines lack structure and diversity (MDAC) is actively trapping across the compared to natural forest stands, they do state for pests that may enter the state provide certain benefits such as carbon and notifies appropriate agencies of their sequestration and habitat for some wildlife findings. Also, inspections of nursery stock species while also providing revenue for by MDAC are vital to detections that may landowners and fiber for local mills. be discovered during their visits. These agencies are well-positioned to collaborate It is critical to recognize that the landowner on new landowner education/awareness objectives play a large part in the diversity of efforts. his or her forest land. For those managing pine plantations for timber production, A USFS-funded program in Mississippi biodiversity will be much lower than if currently pays landowners $50 per acre as the owner’s objective is to enhance mast an incentive to thin high hazard plantations production for game species and hunting. threatened by SPB. This incentive helps Other factors such as the long-term return offset any low pulpwood prices that may on investments for a hardwood stand versus discourage a landowner from not thinning a pine stand also influence a landowner’s their plantations at the appropriate time. management and reforestation decisions. This program should receive support to Site-specific species play an important role continue. Opportunities exist today that in diversity. Some soils and areas of the help keep this forest pest from making a state support high species diversity (e.g. big comeback. Increased education efforts upland hardwoods in north Mississippi), emphasizing good forest stewardship and while other areas may naturally support less proper timber management should be a diversity (e.g. some wetlands dominated by natural fit for the existing SPB programs. Tupelo gum, baldcypress and black willow). These education efforts should be focused on private landowners and local school Opportunities boards. The MFC will continue to work with the USFS in conducting annual detection Invasive Plants flights and spring trapping surveys to The fight against invasive plants should monitor for any potential build up of continue to be a joint effort among several SPB populations.

53 Forest Structure and Diversity distributions (with emphasis on eradication north of I-20 and Education efforts focused on private suppression south of I-20) landowners about proper timber zz Pests - Southeast MS, Jackson management and stewardship must County and I-10 corridor continue. Emphasis should be on helping the zz High hazard areas on Southern Pine landowner meet their personal goals while Beetle Hazard Rating emphasizing the importance of diversity. zz Longleaf pine historic distribution in Potential Partners East Central and South MS

zz Alcorn State University (ASU) Issue 5: Stewardship Education z z County Forestry Associations (CFA) Stewardship z z Kudzu Coalition education z z Local school boards means informing z z Mississippi Association of and educating Conservation Districts (MACD) Mississippi’s z z Mississippi Association of Consulting landowners, youth Forsters and the public z z Mississippi Department of Agriculture about the proper and Commerce (MDAC) stewardship of our z z Mississippi Department of forest resources. Environmental Quality (MDEQ) zz Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Forest Resource Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) zz Mississippi Forestry Association By promoting the proper management (MFA) and responsible use and protection of the zz Mississippi Forestry Commission state’s natural resources, the harmful effects (MFC) of wildfires, insects, diseases, invasive zz Mississippi Loggers Association species, and storms can be minimized (MLA) while improving, enhancing and restoring zz Mississippi Soil and Water the health and productivity of all forest Conservation Districts (MSWCD) communities in Mississippi, whether urban zz Mississippi State University Extension or rural, or public or private. Service (MSUES) Public Benefits zz National Wild Turkey Federation zz Other state forestry agencies Providing effective natural resource (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana) education is vital to raising the level of zz Private natural resource professionals environmental awareness in both youth zz Resource Conservation and and adults. At a young age, learning Development Districts (RC & D) the importance of the forest and related zz The Nature Conservancy (TNC) natural resources can lead to the pursuit zz USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA) of a career in natural resources. Also, a zz USDA Natural Resources better understanding of the wise use and Conservation Service (NRCS) stewardship of natural resources by the zz USDA Forest Service (USFS) public, policymakers and landowners results in better, more informed decisions regarding Priority Landscapes resource management and public policy zz Invasive plants - Species specific issues affecting the economic and ecological values of all of Mississippi’s forest resource. 54 According to the two public surveys varied in scope and have focused on the conducted by the MFC for the Mississippi small group setting for both youth and Assessment (see Appendix C) the need adults. These efforts have been delivered for Stewardship Education received very primarily by natural resource agency important ratings by 64.4 percent of the and college personnel, and oftentimes responders to the web survey (general programs have not been coordinated among public) and 78.7 percent of the responders various providers (agencies, organizations, to the mail survey (defined as underserved educational institutions) by one entity. landowners). Natural resource organizations and Key Conditions or Attributes agencies, through their outreach programs, currently offer a variety of educational All entities (agencies, organizations, experiences through varied traditional professional societies, universities and methods to include forestry field days, colleges, public and private schools) workshops, short courses, conservation involved in stewardship education in the clubs in the classroom, summer camps, state must work together to promote a and many other talks and programs with unified message of the importance of conservation-minded audiences, in small and stewardship of Mississippi’s natural group settings. Topics and programs are resources: stable and fertile soil, productive broad and include: landowner education and sustainable forests, clean air and water, on technical issues such as forestry abundant fish and wildlife, and a public practices, management plan development, educated about the sustainable, responsible estate planning, taxation, marketing, use and appreciation and value of these best management practices, and wildlife natural resources. management to working with youth Threats and Contributing Factors groups of different ages in conservation carnivals and clubs, 4-H, Future Farmers Natural resource education is more of America (FFA), Envirothons, and many important now than ever before. Like the other resource education programs. While rest of the Southeast U.S., Mississippi these outreach efforts have been effective is quickly transitioning from a rural, with small groups, the numbers of people agricultural-based society to a more reached is relatively small, compared to the urban, media-connected society with an state’s population. ever-widening disconnect to the land and natural resources. Instead of the hands-on Most educational outreach personnel agree experiences garnered by growing up on the that one-on-one and classroom approaches farm, exploring forests and fields, hunting, are the most meaningful ways to educate. fishing and other nature-based recreation However, recent funding reductions and the activities, children’s and young adults’ possibility of future reductions for education experiences with nature are very limited programs within resource agencies and and information and learning is achieved organizations threaten the delivery of these primarily from classroom, television, internet education methods and programs (which and other social media outlets. Public are already limited by lower funding and opinion is increasingly shaped by these personnel). Further personnel reductions virtual experiences as opposed to actual will adversely affect the effectiveness of the field experiences. traditional methods and the development of any new methods for delivering key In the past, forest stewardship education messages about forest stewardship. efforts in the state have been broad and

55 Opportunities zz Mississippi Forestry Commission (MFC) Traditional programs and methods of zz Mississippi Museum of Natural delivery are needed; however, more web- Science (MMNS) based education and outreach programs zz Mississippi Soil and Water should be developed and used to reach Conservation Commission (MSWCC) a wider audience. Access to information, zz Mississippi State University Extension technical guidance and educational (MSUES) programs via the internet is an efficient zz Private Natural Resource method to reach more people who cannot Professionals attend programs in person and will allow zz Resource Conservation and agencies and organizations to meet Development (RC&D) demands with fewer personnel. zz USDA Forest Service Funding reductions may have some zz USDA Natural Resource beneficial effects. It may ultimately force Conservation Service (NRCS) more coordination of stewardship education Priority Landscapes efforts in the state among the traditional forest stewardship educators and programs. Note: Stewardship education should be Decreased budgets will also necessitate targeted to priority geographic areas defined focus of limited resources and personnel for other key issues discussed in on highest priority forest issue such as this document. those described in this assessment: forest z sustainability, resource markets, renewable z Statewide for general stewardship energy, land ownership policies, forest education health, wildfire and fuel reduction, climate zz Priority areas of Mississippi identified change and wildlife conservation. in other key issue areas and State and Private Forestry programs Increased emphasis by Congress and zz Urban expansion areas within Forest federal agencies on providing services Legacy Areas and resource education to underserved zz Underserved populations by county landowners will ultimately result in improved conditions for private forest lands. Issue 6: Wildfire Fuel Reduction Potential Partners Development around forested zz Alcorn State University Extension areas continues (ASUES) to increase the zz Department of Wildlife Fisheries and potential for Parks (MDWFP) catastrophic zz Mississippi Association of Consulting impacts from Foresters wildfires. Reducing zz Mississippi Association of or eliminating Cooperatives various fuels from zz Mississippi Department of Agriculture the forest structure and Commerce (MDAC) in cost effective ways is integral for the zz Mississippi Department of Education protection of Mississippi’s forest resources zz Mississippi Department of and the safety and protection of persons Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and property. To decrease the threat of zz Mississippi Forestry Association wildland fire to communities and the forested (MFA) 56 landscape, more fuel reduction treatments wildlife habitat and timber. Fire is also an need to be performed by prescribed burning, essential tool in management of habitat for mechanical treatment or other means. wildlife species of concern that use fire- dependent communities like longleaf pine. Forest Resource Direct Threats and Contributing Fire is critical for forest health, and all forest Factors resources in the state are impacted by fire. Increased urbanization creates greater Public Benefit liability threats from escaped fires and Use of prescribed burning and other means smoke hazards along with a negative of reducing fuel loading decreases the public opinion and/or poor understanding threat of wildland fires around the WUI and of the needs and benefits of prescribed rural communities. The Southern Wildfire fire. One of the barriers to applying fire Risk Assessment (SWRA) shows those to the landscape is smoke management. Communities at Risk (CAR) are statewide. As urban and suburban areas and infrastructure encroach into natural areas, Key Attributes resource managers must constantly monitor weather and adjust burn areas to minimize Reducing fuel loading means less intense the impacts of smoke on highways and wildland fires. Certified Prescribed Burn communities. Air quality regulations in Managers use their skills with prescribed fire expanding WUIs limit the opportunity to use to address fuel loadings as well as forest prescribed fire by reducing the number of health and proper forest management for burn days. a variety of landowner objectives such as

57 Also, small acreages in the WUI limit the There are a limited number of fire ability and willingness of treating those suppression resources in the state. The areas by prescribed burning, mechanical MFC has downsized over the years so there treatments or other means due to elevated are fewer tractor/plow units. Along with this cost to perform the work. There are a limited there has been an increase in the number number of certified prescribed burners to of Volunteer Fire Departments (VFD), but perform this work. The liability involved when with the changing economy, there are fewer doing a prescribed burn is a major limiting volunteers who respond to fires. Though factor here. these VFDs may be equipped, they have high turnover and a serious manpower Spread and migration of invasive, fire- shortage in many areas of the state. adapted exotic species (e.g. cogongrass, Consequently, as MFC tractor/plow units and eastern baccharis, Chinese tallowtree, personnel decreased, the average fire size etc.) has enlarged the threat of wildfire by has grown. This is due to longer response increasing fuel loading and fire intensity. times for the MFC units. At one time the MFC had many cooperators around the state. Industrial forest landowners such as Weyerhaeuser, Georgia- Pacific, International Paper and other companies had tractor/ plow units and would assist MFC crews with fire suppression in the past. In recent years, these companies have sold much of their timberland and no longer have these fire suppression units. The timberland is still there, and the MFC still has responsibility to suppress those fires that occur on that land. Investment companies or private individuals now own some of these forest lands, but do not have the means of suppressing wildland fires. Also these lands are often not being managed as intensively

58 as they were in the past. Therefore, the Priority Landscapes frequency of prescribed burning is not z being accomplished and fuel loadings have z Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment increased as a result. (SWRA) – Identifies Community at Risk (CAR), high fire occurrence Opportunities areas, location of MFC tractor/plow units and VFDs The One Message Many Voices campaign zz County Wildfire Protection Plan being started in the South to promote (CWPP) – Currently 34 counties have prescribed burning is an important these plans. The plans identify areas opportunity that will help increase awareness at risk to wildland fires. This includes among the general public and public officials public infrastructure and other about the need for prescribed burning of important areas in the county. forest lands (fuel reduction, ecosystem zz Location of Certified Prescribed Burn management, reducing competition etc.). Managers (CPBs)– Target counties The County Wildfire Protection Plans where there are few or no CPBs. (CWPPs) depict those areas most zz Invasive Species Areas – Target threatened by wildland fire and aids areas for suppression and elimination county fire coordinators by identifying of non-native invasive species high risk areas to identify fuel reduction identified in Forest Health section grant opportunities. Currently, there are 34 Issue 7: Climate Change counties with CWPPs. Plans should be developed for remaining counties in the Climate change coming years. is defined as the actual or The Prescribed Burn Short Course is offered theoretical changes twice a year. This training has the potential in global climate of increasing the number of Certified systems occurring Prescribed Burners in the state. in response to Potential Partners physical or chemical feedback, resulting zz Mississippi Department of Wildlife, from human or Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) naturally induced changes in planetary zz Mississippi Wildlife Fire Advisory terrestrial, atmospheric, and ecosystems. Council According to the U.S. Environmental zz MS Insurance Department State Fire Protection Agency (EPA), there is potential Marshall for both beneficial and adverse effects on zz Prescribed Burn Council forests due to elevated concentrations of zz The Nature Conservancy (TNC) carbon dioxide and increasing temperatures. zz U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service That are potential adverse effects from (USFWS) changing precipitation patterns, increased zz U.S. Forest Service, National Forests insects and diseases, and the potential in Mississippi for more and frequent weather events. zz Volunteer Fire Departments The adverse effects are less certain, more variable and include serious adverse impacts such as increased wildfire, drought and major losses from insects and disease.

59 Forest Resource forests in the South, which comprise 29 percent of U.S. forest cover, account for Changes in plant species composition in approximately one-third of the annual carbon response to global climate change may sequestered in the U.S. cause some forest types to expand, such as oak-hickory, while others may contract such On a local and regional level, forests provide as maple-beech-birch. Species conditioned shade, reduce air temperatures and can to warmer climates, such as sweetgum create cooler microclimates under the forest and longleaf pine, may expand their range canopy as well as in bodies of water. Cooler north. The area of suitable conditions for water holds more oxygen, which supports other species such as yellow poplar may beneficial habitat for plant and animal decline. Coastal forests, such as low-lying life. Forest canopies in urban areas block baldcypress swamps, may decline in extent sunlight and can reduce energy costs. and health due to an increase in inundation and saltwater intrusion as sea levels rise. Potential beneficial effects of elevated levels of carbon dioxide and increased These changes in plant composition can temperature, such as increase also increase ecosystem vulnerability to photosynthesis, nitrogen deposition and other disturbances such as wildfire and warmer soils which may increase forest biological invasion. Disturbances can growth, are limited to certain areas of the dramatically change forest ecosystem country and certain forest types. Adverse structure and species composition, can effects (drought, storms, insect outbreaks cause short-term productivity and carbon and wildfire) are as important to ecosystem storage loss and improve opportunities for function as changes in temperature, invasive species to become established. precipitation, atmospheric carbon dioxide, nitrogen deposition and ozone pollution. Public Benefit The beneficial impact on forest growth in Forest ecosystems help regulate the earth’s some parts of the country from climate climate over the long term and patterns of change is offset by the more significant and precipitation through the carbon cycle. The serious adverse effects from increases in carbon cycle influences climate because wildfires, and the decreases in growth and atmospheric carbon, in the form of carbon productivity caused by pests and disease. dioxide, is the main greenhouse gas. The U.S. EPA Administrator, in its recent These greenhouse gases trap heat leaving EPA Endangerment and Cause or the earth’s surface and create a “blanket” Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases that warms the earth’s atmosphere. The Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air concentration and build up of greenhouse Act found that the total scientific record gases contribute to abnormal long-term “provides compelling support for finding climatic changes. that the greenhouse gas air pollution leads Forests are major repositories of carbon, to predominantly negative consequences also called “sinks.” Trees absorb carbon for biodiversity and the provisioning dioxide during photosynthesis, and some of ecosystem goods and services for of the carbon becomes “sequestered” in ecosystems and wildlife important for branches, trunks and roots while some is public welfare in the U.S., both for current in soils when leaves and other tree parts and future generations. The severity of decay. A standing forest, by sequestering risks and impacts may only increase over carbon, removes carbon dioxide from the time with accumulating greenhouse gas atmosphere and helps prevent the buildup concentrations and associated temperature of greenhouse gases. It is projected that increases and precipitation changes.” 60 Key Conditions or Attributes is not well-developed as discussed earlier. Unlike foreign carbon markets, the U.S. Healthy forests have a higher carbon market has no mandatory cap policy, carbon storage potential than any other land use in sequestration programs are voluntary with the state. Conversion of forest to non-forest industries, and states are forming their own uses and degradation of forests reduce the policies, making a coordinated regional and size of vegetative carbon sinks. Maintaining national effort to reduce greenhouse gas existing forest cover and reforestation of difficult. converted areas, such as agricultural lands, will increase the carbon storage potential of Opportunities Mississippi’s landscape. Various measures (incentives, markets and The same basic silvicultural guidelines for practices) can help ensure Mississippi’s maintaining forest health in Mississippi forest lands supply ecosystem services apply to maintaining healthy forests under (natural benefits) that are needed to changing climatic conditions such as help offset the effects of climate change. planting site appropriate species (native Expansion of existing protected forest area species adapted to soil and site conditions), in public ownership, particularly bottomland minimizing stand disturbances that stress hardwood forests and coastal wetland trees, removing diseased trees, and planting forests will continue to be important, but the at appropriate spacing and densities. amount of public forest land is not likely to increase substantially in the coming years Threats and Contributing Factors and decades. Preservation of moist, mature Precipitation and weather extremes are forests on public lands and adjacent private key to many forestry impacts from climate lands through conservation easements, change. Some areas in the Southeast are acquisition and long-term forest protection likely to experience increases in precipitation programs will help prevent large amounts (western portions of the Southeast), that can of carbon from reaching the atmosphere lead to increased forest productivity while if these areas were logged and will also others in the eastern portion may experience provide habitat protection for wildlife species more drought, which leads to reduced that depend on mature forest ecosystems. forest productivity. More prevalent wildfire Increasing resilience of existing forests on disturbances and droughts (along with other public and private lands by restoring natural extreme weather events such as hurricanes) fire regimes and restoring natural hydrology can cause forest damage, and pose the to riparian forests will increase their largest threat to forest ecosystems over resistance to climate change. time, especially where conversion to off-site Existing forest programs that provide species has occurred. incentives for afforestation, forest The effects of climate change command conservation and management on private more management resources and public lands should be continued and promoted attention as well. For instance, the ability (e.g., CRP, WRP) and new efforts such of parks and protected areas to serve as as those devoted to restoration and refuges for some plants and animals may management of longleaf pine in its natural decline with shifts in extent, range and range like America’s Longleaf. Emerging distribution of some forest types. and maturing U.S. markets and payment systems for ecosystem services such as Though expansion of forest cover can play a carbon sequestration represent a potential large role in addressing climate change, the new revenue stream that may provide carbon market in the U.S. and in Mississippi private landowners additional income and 61 motivation to keep land in forest cover and Priority Landscapes to reforest land in agriculture or open fields. zz Priority areas for WRP (MS River However, more pilot programs and local Alluvial Plain ecoregion) examples are needed to demonstrate the zz Priority areas for CRP effectiveness of purchasing carbon offsets zz Open land (agriculture, pasture, open and raising awareness. Private landowner fields) adjacent to public lands participation in sustainable forest certification zz Mature forests on public lands and programs should also be encouraged and adjacent private lands developed at the state level. A critical zz Forest Legacy Areas component of all emerging and existing Issue 8: Wildlife opportunities for addressing climate change in the state should be coordinated with Forested other regional and national efforts and must communities in include a significant public outreach and Mississippi are education component. important for many Potential Partners common resident and migratory fish zz Alcorn State University Extension and wildlife species (ASUES) as well as species zz Carbon Fund (CF) of concern. The zz Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) conversion and/ zz Department of Energy (DOE) National or changes in structure and composition Voluntary Greenhouse Gases Program of Mississippi’s natural forest communities zz Mississippi Development Authority have spurred the decline of many species (MDA) of concern such as the black pine snake, zz Mississippi Department of Environmental gopher tortoise, red cockaded woodpecker, Quality (MDEQ) Louisiana black bear and Mississippi zz Mississippi Department of Wildlife Sandhill crane. Maintaining, protecting, Fisheries & Parks (MDWFP) enhancing and restoring, where possible, zz Mississippi Forestry Association (MFA) natural forest communities with appropriate zz Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory structure and composition and of sufficient (MIFI) size is critical to the survival of these zz Mississippi State University (MSU) species. While forests on public lands are zz Mississippi State University Extension critically important in the conservation of (MSUES) many species, private lands offer significant zz National Park Service (NPS) opportunities for management, protection zz Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) and restoration of habitat for forest- zz The Nature Conservancy (TNC) dependent species. zz U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Forest Resource Military Installations and Stennis Space Center Forest communities in Mississippi zz USDA Forest Service (USFS) provide diverse habitat for resident and zz U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS) migrating wildlife species. The Mississippi zz Longleaf Alliance Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation zz Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation Strategy (CWCS) 2005 identified and described the location and condition of key habitats and natural communities essential to the conservation of 297 fish and 62 wildlife species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) in the state including 18 The CWCS ranked the amphibians, 70 birds, 34 crustaceans, following forest sub-types as highest 74 fish, 17 mammals, 49 mussels and 35 concern for wildlife species in the state. reptiles. The majority of these SGCN as zz Small stream swamp forests well as common species depend on natural zz Dry longleaf pine forest communities for at least part of their zz Bottomland hardwoods life cycle (breeding, nesting, foraging, zz Hardwood seeps overwintering, cover, and roosting). Trees zz Lower slope/high terraces provide food such as berries, nuts, seeds, hardwoods buds, young stems, leaves, bark and nectar zz Mesic longleaf pine savannas which also offers a bound or free source zz Dry hardwood forests of water for some species. Forest cover zz Bald cypress/gum swamp forests for wildlife includes young hardwoods and zz Dry-mesic hardwood forests pines, flooded hardwoods, mixed stands, zz Loess hardwood forests edges, tree tops, open woodlands and zz Dry-mesic shortleaf/loblolly pine thickets. Tree cavities, leaf nests, forest zz Beech/Magnolia forests floor and canopies offer reproductive areas. The CWCS classified Mississippi forest communities (which encompass both public, Public Benefit private nonindustrial and industrial forest lands) into nine major forest types (below) As discussed earlier, fish and wildlife species and 20 sub-types (discussed in Chapter I). support abundant recreational activities enjoyment in the form of hunting and fishing 1. Dry-Mesic Upland Forest/Woodlands and wildlife watching in the state. Fish and 2. Old Fields, Prairies, Cedar Glades and wildlife, as intrinsic components of the forest Pine Plantations communities, also provide important natural 3. Mesic Upland Forests benefits as pollination, seed dispersal and 4. Bottomland Hardwoods soil and nutrient recycling as well as control 5. Riverfront Forests of other populations (insects, plant species). 6. Wet Pine Savannas/Flatwoods These ecosystem services are directly 7. Spring Seeps attributable to wildlife species within the 8. Swamp Forests forest ecosystem. Wildlife species such as 9. Upland Maritime Woodlands birds, reptiles, crustaceans and amphibians can be good indicators of environmental conditions. Key Conditions or Attributes Healthy, functioning and diverse forest ecosystems are critical to providing habitat for both SGCN and common fish and wildlife species. Natural forest communities are adapted to local conditions and those that have not been impacted by non- native, invasive species, fire suppression, disease or insects, fragmentation, air pollution, or removal of trees are more

63 stable and functional. Large patches of plant composition, encroachment of forest communities that are interconnected, invasive species as a result of altered healthy and have diversity in structure, plant fire regime. species and ages will provide higher quality zz Forest Conversion – to off-site habitat for more wildlife species. Maintaining species native forest communities on private and zz Incompatible Forestry Practices - public lands through active planning and coordinated management is essential to Improper planting densities, diseases ensuring habitat for common species and related to planting densities, herbicide SGCN in Mississippi in rural and use on site preparation, planting urban areas. offsite species, improper silvicultural practices (thinning rotations, bedding/ Fire is an important ecological process shearing, highgrading) that maintains many types of forest zz Invasive Species – Japanese communities statewide in Mississippi and climbing fern, Japanese honeysuckle, should be emphasized for its substantial St. Augustine, cogongrass, Johnson benefits to wildlife. For example, fruit grass, kudzu, bamboo, Chinese and seed production is stimulated after a fire. Yield and quality increases occur tallow, Japanese privet, southern pine in herbage, legumes, and browse from beetle, feral hogs, fire ants. hardwood sprouts. Openings are created Moderate to High Threats: for feeding, travel, and dusting. Selecting the proper size, frequency, and timing of zz Agricultural Conversion – historical burns is crucial to the successful use of fire conversion to row crops, catfish ponds to improve wildlife habitat. Prescriptions zz Second Home/Vacation Home should recognize the biological requirements Development – habitat loss, (such as nesting times) of the preferred fragmentation (particularly associated wildlife species. Also consider the vegetative with vacation homes around lakes, condition of the stand and, most importantly, the changes fire will produce in understory streams, reservoirs) structure and species composition. zz Urban/Suburban Development – habitat loss, fragmentation Threats and Contributing Factors zz Road Construction – habitat Mississippi’s CWCS identified major threats fragmentation, runoff to forested habitats used by SGCN by Because the vast majority of forest land habitat type and within each ecoregion. in the state is in private ownership, and is Major threats to fish and wildlife that depend not actively managed by the landowner, on forest communities that were ranked as implementation of any practices that may “High” or “Moderate” in the CWCS are: address the threats, such as prescribed High Threats: burns and invasive species control, are very challenging. On properties where timber zz Altered Fire Regime - fire production is the sole or primary use of suppression, fire lanes (residual forest land, there can be conflicts between effect of stopping fires from the goals of the landowner and the needs of moving, fragmentation/edge effect wildlife species. Also, in most communities from firelanes), season of burn, in Mississippi (at the county and city level), little to no landscape level planning occurs frequency of burning, change in that considers forest conservation and

64 habitat protection when those political population. Deer, dove, quail, and turkey are subdivisions develop long-range master game species that benefit from prescribed plans for their communities. This often burns and habitat for SGCN such as gopher results in road, subdivision and utility tortoise, indigo snake, and red cockaded development that furthers fragmentation of woodpecker are also enhanced by burning. habitat. One of the most significant emerging Opportunities opportunities for forest conservation on Several existing and emerging conservation a regional scale is through America’s programs are available or will soon Longleaf – A Restoration Initiative for be available in the state to encourage the Southern Longleaf Pine Forest. This conservation actions and practices that will Initiative published a 15-year range-wide improve or protect forest habitat for wildlife conservation plan in 2009 with a goal to species of concern as well as to keep increase longleaf acreage in its historic common species common, as recommended range from 3.4 to 8.0 million acres. The in Mississippi’s CWCS and Forest Legacy plan recommends six major strategies, Assessment of Need. Federal programs and specific objectives and action steps such as the CRP, WRP as well as Wildlife to accomplish this overarching goal. MFC Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), is taking the lead role in coordinating Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW), the Mississippi’s participation in this effort, and Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) in April 2010 hosted a local coordination and the Landowners Incentive Program (LIP) team meeting to begin identifying restoration through the MDWFP are key conservation opportunities in the state that will support efforts being implemented in Mississippi this regional effort. that support restoration, conservation and Potential Partners management of high priority natural forest communities such as longleaf pine, forested zz Alcorn State University (ASU) wetlands, riparian areas, and habitat for zz ASU Extension Service (ASUES) threatened and endangered forest species zz Ducks Unlimited (DU) in conservation priority areas identified in zz East Mississippi Community College each program’s guidance document. MFC’s zz Jones County Community College Forest Legacy Program provides competitive zz Land trusts in MS grant funds to protect and restore natural zz Mississippi Department of forest communities threatened by conversion Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to non-forest use. zz Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) Because wildlife benefits from burning zz Mississippi Department of Wildlife are substantial, programs that encourage Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) or provide assistance with prescribed zz Mississippi Prescribed Fire Council burning on private lands present one of the zz Mississippi State University (MSU) greatest opportunities to improve habitat for zz MS Association of Conservation wildlife particularly where loblolly, shortleaf, Districts longleaf, or slash pine is the primary zz MS Fish and Wildlife Foundation overstory species. Periodic fire tends to zz MS Museum of Natural Science favor understory species that require a (MMNS) more open habitat. A mosaic of burned and zz MS Soil and Water Conservation unburned areas maximizes "edge effect" Association which promotes a large and varied wildlife zz MS Wildlife Federation

65 zz MSU Extension Service (MSUES) zz National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) zz National Park Service (NPS) zz National Wild Turkey Federation/MS Chapter (NWTF) zz Naval Air Station Meridian zz Stennis Space Center zz The Nature Conservancy (TNC) zz U.S. Department of Defense zz U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) zz U.S. Forest Service (USFS) zz USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA) zz USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Services (NRCS) zz Wildlife Mississippi

Priority Landscapes

zz Conservation Priorities identified through the USDA State Technical Committee for Farm Bill programs such as CRP, WRP, WHIP, HFRP zz Priority areas identified in the PFW and LIP programs. zz Priority areas identified in the Range- wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf Pine zz High ranking natural forest communities identified in CWCS zz Forest Legacy Areas zz Natural Areas identified by MS Natural Heritage Program (forested) zz High priority drainages identified by CWCS (Tombigbee, Northeast Hills/ TN River, Pascagoula River, Lower Coastal Plain/Pearl River) zz Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion zz East Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion

66 IV. Priority Forest Areas

Priority landscapes or priority areas in Mississippi were defined for each key issue defined and discussed in Chapter III. The following is a list of those priority landscapes for the state by key issue area with map illustrations for many of the priority areas that were developed by MFC. Areas that are a priority for multiple states in the Southeast are marked with an asterisk (*). Not all areas are illustrated, and there may be other priority landscapes identified through future planning and development of MFC’s annual action plan. Many priority areas overlap for key issues. For instance, high priority areas for wildland fire fuel reduction are also key areas targeted for longleaf pine restoration and non-native invasive plant control. Geographic areas where Mississippi has the greatest opportunity or need to collaborate with other states in the region include: 1. The target area for longleaf pine restoration and management within its historic range. 2. Priority areas for certain non-native, invasive plant and pest suppression and eradication. 3. Multi-state priorities for afforestation such as agriculture and pasture lands identified by federal Farm Bill private forest land incentive programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and others.

Priority landscapes are also identified in Mississippi’s strategic issues matrix found in Chapter VI.

67 Priority Areas by Key Issue Issue 1: Forest Sustainability • Wildfire fuel reduction priority areas • Natural range of longleaf pine* MULTI-STATE • Southern Forest Land Assessment (SFLA) high priority areas • High priority watersheds defined by MDEQ Basin plans. • Priority areas for invasive species and forest pest programs* MULTI-STATE • Priority areas for MS Forest Stewardship Program • Forest Legacy Areas

Priority areas identified by the Southern Forest Land Assessment 68 Priority watersheds identified by Mississippi department of Environmental Quality

69 Issue 2: Resource Markets • Statewide • Mill allocation by type and status, including new emerging market mills • Growth to Drain – Areas of state where growth is out pacing usage • Limited railroad lines in Mississippi • Limited deep water ports in Mississippi • Longleaf acres present / historic acreage* MULTI-STATE

70 Issue 3: Land Ownership Policies zz Increasing urbanization and WUI areas || DeSoto/Tate Counties || Tupelo || Jackson Metro || Meridian || Hattiesburg/Laurel || Gulf Coast zz Mississippi Forest Legacy Areas zz Priority forest communities identified in the Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy zz Rural forested areas of the state zz Statewide, all forestland property owners

71 72 73 74 Issue 4: Forest Health General zz Invasive plants - Species specific distributions (with emphasis on eradication north of I-20 and suppression south of I-20)* MULTI-STATE zz Pests - Southeast Mississippi, Jackson County and I-10 corridor* MULTI-STATE zz High hazard areas on Southern Pine Beetle Hazard Rating* MULTI-STATE zz Longleaf pine historic distribution in East Central and South MS* MULTI-STATE

High priority areas for forest health outreach.

75 Plants zz Elimination of cogongrass north of Interstate 20 and suppression of cogongrass south of Interstate 20. * MULTI-STATE zz Using the latest USFS Southern Research Station maps, emphasis will be placed on the counties with the highest percentage of infestation in the fight against kudzu, Japanese and Chinese privet and Japanese climbing fern. Also, by using the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment, areas of high priority which have a very high percentage of NNIP will take priority in funding for control projects. * MULTI-STATE

76 77 78 Non-Native Insects and Disease zz Redbay Ambrosia Beetle - Southeast portion of Mississippi, with special emphasis on Jackson County and the Interstate 10 corridor, where the problem presently exists. Based on inventory data, plans will also address other areas of concern where species are present and/or relatively abundant, particularly areas where threatened or endangered plant species that may be affected occur * MULTI-STATE zz The initial focus area for the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) will be in Tunica, Sunflower, Humphreys, Sharkey and Issaquena Counties. These counties have a minimum of 10 percent Ash species in their timber inventories across the county according to the latest MIFI data. Municipalities with large inventories of ash trees in their cities will also be a priority focus area.* MULTI-STATE zz Geospatial examination of inventory data will be utilized to target at risk areas containing abundant or valuable black walnut (for thousand canker disease or TCD), maple (for Asian longhorned beetle or ALB), and oak (for sudden oak death or SOD). zz The statewide SPB hazard rating map will be utilized to identify areas of pine resources particularly at risk for Sirex woodwasp. As part of identifying and prioritizing landscapes and focus areas for program delivery for all of these non-native, invasive pests, higher risk introduction pathways such as ports, transportation corridors, distribution centers, campgrounds, nurseries, etc., will be considered and reflected in action plans or response plans.* MULTI-STATE

79 Southern Pine Beetle zz Historical data available from 1960 – 1996. Southwest MS will be a target area to focus on for further emphasis of SPB prevention programs. zz SPB hazard rating maps, many areas in southeast MS and east Central MS show up as a high hazard area. These maps will be used to determine priority areas where we will focus prevention work such as thinning programs and workshops. * MULTI-STATE zz The native range maps of longleaf pine will be used to determine the priority landscape areas for the longleaf pine restoration projects.* MULTI-STATE

Diversity zz Native range for Longleaf pine restoration project. *MULTI-STATE

80 Issue 5: Stewardship Education zz Statewide for general stewardship education zz Underserved populations by county – to be identified zz Priority areas of Mississippi identified in other key issue areas and S & PF programs zz Health Education Priority Area zz Urban expansion areas within Forest Legacy Areas Issue 6: Wildfire Fuel Reduction zz Southern Wildfire RiskAssessment (SWRA) – Community at Risk (CAR), high fire occurrence areas, location of MFC tractor/plow units and VFDs.

81 zz County Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) – Currently 34 counties have these plans. The plans identify areas at risk to wildland fires.This includes public infrastructure and other important areas in the county. The remaining counties are priorities for plans. zz Location of Certified Prescribed Burn Managers – Priorities are counties where there are few or no CPBMs. zz Non-native invasive species priority areas for suppression/ eradication in forest health section

82 83 Issue 7: Climate Change zz Priority areas for WRP (MS River Alluvial Plain ecoregion) * MULTI-STATE zz Priority areas for CRP zz Open land (agriculture, pasture, open fields) adjacent to public lands zz Mature forests on public lands and adjacent private lands zz Forest Legacy Areas

84 Issue 8: Wildlife zz Conservation Priorities identified through the USDA State Technical Committee for Farm Bill programs such as CRP, WRP, Wildlife Habitat Incentives program (WHIP), Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) and others. zz Priority areas identified in the Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) and Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). zz Priority areas identified in the Range-wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf Pine* MULTI-STATE zz High ranking natural forest communities identified in CWCS zz Forest Legacy Areas zz Natural Areas identified by MS Natural Heritage Program (forested) zz High priority drainages identified by CWCS (Tombigbee, Northeast Hills/ TN River, Pascagoula River, Lower Coastal Plain/Pearl River) zz Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion zz East Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion

85 V. Introduction to Forest Resource Strategies

The second part of this comprehensive forest assessment includes a broad set The Farm Bill requires of recommended strategies that were resource strategies to include: developed to respond to the key issues - An outline of long-term strategies identified by stakeholders described in for addressing priority landscapes Chapter III. These overarching strategies identified in the assessment and were developed in response to a mandate in the national themes and associated the 2008 Farm Bill that requires each state management objectives. to complete this Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and Forest Resource Strategy - Description of how the state by June 2010 in order to receive funds proposes to invest federal funding, under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance along with other resources, to Act (CFAA). The Forest Resource Strategy address state, regional, and national describes broad, long-term strategies forest management priorities. and plans for investing state, federal, and - A long-term timeline for project other resources to effectively stimulate and program implementation. or leverage desired action and engage multiple partners. This resource strategy - Identification of partner and incorporates existing statewide forest and stakeholder involvement. resource management plans and creates the basis for future program, agency and partner - Strategies for monitoring coordination. Those resources and programs outcomes within priority forest needed to implement these recommended landscape areas and how action strategies are described in Chapter VII – will be revised when needed. State Forestry Programs and Resources. - Description of how the state’s The following is a list of overall strategies proposed activities will accomplish identified for each of the eight key national S&PF program objectives issues. These strategies are presented and respond to specified performance in a table (matrix) in Chapter VI – measures and indicators. Strategic Issues Matrix as follows: - How S&PF programs will be used 1. Strategies - statements of major to address priority landscape approaches or methods for attaining and management objectives. goals and resolving specific issues - Existing statewide plans including 2. Priority landscape areas to be wildlife action plans, community wildfire targeted (where relevant) - mentioned protection plans and address existing in Chapter IV-Priority Landscapes. S&PF program planning requirements. 3. Secondary key forest issues that would also be addressed. 4. Program areas (S&PF and other forestry programs) that could contribute to 86 implementing the strategy (described in 8. Measures of success Chapter VII – State Forestry Programs). 9. National S&PF themes and Key stakeholders 5.  objectives that the strategy supports 6. R esources available or needed (referenced by numbers that to implement the strategy (see correspond to the list below). Chapter VII – State Forestry). Chapter VII – State Forestry Programs and 7. Existing or potential partners Resources includes a description of all major that can help implement each forest and land conservation programs in recommended strategy. the state that may be used to implement recommended strategies and accomplish objectives. S&PF programs are emphasized, National Themes but other state, federal and non-government and Objectives: programs are described as well. 1. Conser ve Working This statewide assessment and strategy, Forest Landscapes will serve as a guide and foundation 1.1. Identify and conserve high for MFC and its partners to develop its priority forest ecosystems detailed annual action plans including and landscapes specific measurable goals, objectives and 1.2. Actively and sustainably action steps to implement each strategy. manage forests 2. Protect Forests from Harm Summary of Strategies 2.1. Restore fire-adapted lands and by Key Issue Areas reduce risk of wildfire impacts See Chapter VI for more detail on 2.2. Identify, manage, and each recommended strategy. reduce threats to forest and ecosystem health 1. Forest Sustainability 3. Enhance Public Benefits from Trees and Forests Strategy 1.1 3.1. Protect and enhance water Promote quality and quantity reforestation and 3.2. Improve air quality and afforestation of conserve energy longleaf pine on appropriate sites 3.3. Assist communities in planning within its natural for and reducing wildfire risks range. 3.4. Maintain and enhance the economic benefits and Strategy 1.2 values of trees and forests Increase 3.5. Protect, conserve, and enhance use of prescribed burning for wildlife and fish habitat timber stand improvement and 3.6. Connect people to trees wildlife habitat development. and forests, and engage them in environmental stewardship activities 3.7. Manage and restore trees and forests to mitigate and adapt to global climate change

87 Strategy 1.3 Create a natural resource such as carbon and biomass markets, and forest land management web- recreation and ecosystem services. based information clearing house to include traditional landowners as well as Strategy 2.4 Establish and maintain underserved landowners. Include resources a statewide integrated transportation available through consulting foresters, State system specifically to facilitate movement and Federal incentive programs and grants. of forest and wood products. Strategy 1.4 Create a working group Strategy 2.5 Conduct comprehensive to study forest fragmentation and forest resource and market study to identify parcelization impacts on soil, water, traditional markets and potential non- wildlife, wildfire and to identify resources traditional markets and to identify forest required to assist landowners (especially assets and current utilization levels. underserved landowners) not currently 3. Land Ownership Policies eligible for federal or state assistance. Strategy 3.1 Strategy 1.5 Increase stewardship Create public management planning and technical policy designed to assistance to assist landowners in maintain, improve implementing plan recommendations and protect through the Tree Farm Program, favorable tax certification programs, other state, policies in regard federal and private forest conservation to forestry and programs as well as consulting foresters. land ownership Strategy 1.6 Encourage and improve (including capital agriculture/forestry/watershed land-use gains, inheritance tax, severance tax, etc. planning and BMPs to address nonpoint Strategy 3.2 Establish policy/law pollution, erosion and water quality issues. that facilitates the improvement 2. Resource Markets of roads and bridges (remove impacts to traditional logging). Strategy 2.1 Develop and Strategy 3.3 Establish policy/law at the state maintain wood level that standardizes county road use, using directory of removing restrictive barriers to logging. timber products Strategy 3.4 Protect the “right to practice outputs and forestry” law and private consumption property rights. and trends. Strategy 3.5 Establish law/policy that Strategy creates new programs or modifies 2.2 Develop existing programs to enable assistance and publish guidelines for harvesting to ecosystem goods/services and/or non- biomass products and the impact traditional management objectives. on managing forests land. Strategy 2.3 Evaluate potential opportunities to utilize the state’s abundant forest resources including traditional wood product markets and non-traditional markets

88 4. Forest Health 5. Stewardship Education

Strategy 4.1 Strategy 5.1 Protect and Coordinate conserve natural with partners forest communities/ to continue the ecosystems delivery of current from non-native, stewardship invasive plants education efforts through elimination/ with emphasis suppression of on the delivery invasive (plants). of issue specific information in priority areas for key issues. Strategy 4.2 Collaboratively develop statewide action plans with partners and Strategy 5.2 Secure S&PF redesign or stakeholders for non-native, invasive other additional grant funding to focus pests already established and spreading stewardship education and outreach elsewhere in the US, and which pose efforts in priority issue areas of the state a threat to Mississippi’s forest and of Mississippi and multi-state areas where shade tree resources (pests). these priority areas are shared. This additional grant funding would contribute to Strategy 4.3 Promote thinning and other increasing efforts for priority issue areas. forest management practices that encourage sustainable and healthy forest conditions Strategy 5.3 Improve methods and so that high hazard stands are less than delivery of stewardship education and five percent of the total susceptible host assistance to underserved landowners. type acreage in the state; Encourage removal of off-site pine whenever possible Strategy 5.4 Secure additional grant funding and restoration of longleaf pines on sites to improve delivery and outsourcing of where appropriate, such that longleaf Forest Stewardship Management planning pine is restored to at least 25 percent for landowners in these priority issue of its historical range in the state. areas including underserved ownerships. These plans would focus on specific Strategy 4.4 Educate landowners on the recommendations and practices that would benefits of maintaining diverse, healthy, directly address the landowner’s objectives and vigorous forest resources using sound and trends and threats associated with forestry, wildlife, and water quality practices. these priority issue areas. Depending on funding levels, plan development would Strategy 4.5 Emphasize establishing be incentivized and outsourced to forestry and managing longleaf on soils that consultants and other natural resource are appropriate for the species. professionals in these priority issue areas.

89 Strategy 5.5 Seek additional funding to 7. Climate Change improve web-based social media efforts in Forest Stewardship education. Improving Strategy 7.1 the interactivity of natural resource Encourage education websites would provide a more afforestation of appealing, and informative experience. agriculture, pasture Emphasis should be placed on integrating and open fields. and organizing web based information to Strategy 7.2 meet the needs of the priority issue areas. Support education Strategy 5.6 Develop with partners, outreach and informational materials and displays awareness promoting the conditions and management efforts in state needs of these specific issue priority areas. on how landowners can participate in carbon market programs. 6. Wildfire Fuel Reduction Strategy 7.3 Encourage participation Strategy 6.1 in forestry certification programs. Increase the Number of Certified Strategy 7.4 Conserve/protect existing Prescribed Burn forests with highest carbon stores (moist, Managers mature forestlands) in large blocks on (CPBM). public lands and adjacent private lands. Strategy 6.2 Increase the acres prescribed burned annually in high risk areas. Strategy 6.3 Increase the use of prescribed burning using current land owner assistance programs to reduce fuel loading from native plants and non-native invasive species plants. Strategy 6.4 Identify high fire risk areas throughout the state. Strategy 6.5 Promote the implementation of mitigation burning in high risk areas identified in the 34 County Wildfire Protection Plans. Continue to provide funding to insure plans are completed in remaining counties. Strategy 6.6 Provide equipment to VFD for the use in controlling non-forest fires both within the WUI and outside the WUI.

90 8. Wildlife

Strategy 8.1 Encourage and improve management of forested habitat by controlled burning at necessary frequencies and seasons. Strategy 8.2 Encourage restoration and improved management of altered/ degraded habitat when possible. Strategy 8.3 Discourage incompatible forestry practices such as bedding as a method of site preparation and planting extremely high stocking densities. Strategy 8.4 Encourage buffers and improve land use practices adjacent to streams (Streamside Management Zones) and other aquatic/wetland habitats. Strategy 8.5 Provide public education and conservation of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and/or their habitats. Strategy 8.6 Promote and develop landowner incentive and assistance programs for conservation of SGCN and their habitats. Strategy 8.7 Encourage retention, preservation, and conservation of remaining natural habitat and habitat corridors between protected forested blocks through purchase, conservation easements and MOAs. Strategy 8.8 Develop wildlife manual/ guide for incorporating species- specific wildlife recommendations into Stewardship Management Plans developed by MFC foresters. Update Plan writer and SIMS Map to include those recommendations and practices.

91 VI. Strategic Issues Matrix

Mississippi Key Issue 1: Forest Sustainability

Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas Key Resources Available/ Key Partners and Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Issues that Contribute Stakeholders Required to Potential Partners Success National Addressed Implement Objective

1.1 Promote reforestation and afforestation of Natural range of Stewardship Ed, FRDP, EFCRP, Landowners, Vendors, Reliable FSA, NRCS, MFC, USFS, Acres planted. Acres 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, longleaf pine on appropriate sites within its natural longleaf pine Resource Markets, ECP, State and Forestry Vendors, Seedling Sources, Longleaf Alliance, MSU, managed, Acres 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, range. Forest Health, Private USFS Consultants, Public/ Educational Services and Pole Industry, DOD, TNC, burned 3.7 Wildlife, Wildfire grants, Other non- Private entities Promotional materials, MFC Fuel Reduction USFS Programs which provide funds Consultant Foresters, for implementing CFA, NRCS, FSA, reforestation. Longleaf Alliance. 1.2 Increase use of prescribed burning for Wildfire ruel reduction Stewardship Ed, FRDP, Stewardship Communities at Vendors, consultant Mississippi Prescribed Fire Increase number 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, timber stand improvement and wildlife habitat priority areas Resource Markets, Grant, Mitigation risk, landowners, foresters, National Council, MFC, USFS, Tree of private vendors, 2.2, 3.3, 3.4, development. Forest Health, Grants, Proximity hunters, Forests, State Agencies Farmers, Forest Stewards, increase no. acres 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 Wildlife, Wildfire Grants, WHIP with Forest Land MDWFP, DEQ prescribed burn, Fuel Reduction, Holdings, Natural Policy Resource Mgrs

1.3 Create a natural resource and forest land Not applicable Stewardship Ed, Stewardship Grant, Land Owners, Website, Host, Data, USFS-State and Private Website development 1.2, 3.6 management web-based information clearing Resource Markets, Forest Health Natural Resource spatial and non-spatial, MFC, MSU/Alcorn 1.2,2.2,3.4, 3.6 house to include traditional landowners as well Forest Health, Managers, Non- publications, guides, Cooperative Extension, as underserved landowners. Include resources Wildlife, Wildfire Profit Entities, technical support MFA, MIFI, MDWFP, available through consultant foresters, State and Fuel Reduction, Federal and Federal incentive programs and grants. Climate Change State Agencies, Universities, Alcorn/ MSU Extension Service

1.4 Create a working group to study forest FLAs, WUIs around Stewardship None available at Communities, USFS redesign, Funds MFC, MSU/Alcorn Publication and 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, fragmentation and parcelization impacts on soil, Meridian, Desoto/Tate Ed, Resource this time Underserved to print results as well as Extension Service, educational materials, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 water, wildlife, wildfire, to identify resources Counties, Working Markets, Forest landowners, educational materials, USFS, landowner groups Programs to assist and 3.7 required to assist landowners (especially group would identify Health, Wildlife, Consultants, FIA representing underserved underserved underserved landowners not currently eligible for other priority areas Landownership Vendors landowners, MFA, MDEQ landowners with federal or state assistance). upon completion Policies. property below current program requirements 1.5 Increase stewardship management planning SFLA High Priority Stewardship FRDP, Tree, Farms, Land Owners, NRCS, FSA, MFC, State NRCS, FSA, MFC, MFA, Certified Forest 1.1, 1.2, 3.4, and technical assistance to assist landowners areas. Ed, Resource Consolidated Wood-using and Private Forestry Tree Farm of America, Stewardship. Certified 3.5 and 3.6 in implementing plan recommendations through Markets, Forest Stewardship Grant, facilities, Forestry - USFS, Consulting Private Consultants Tree Farms. Increase utilization of the Tree Farm Program, certification Health, Wildlife, Redesign, Federal Vendors Foresters MDWFP the number by 20% programs, other state, federal and private Wildfire Fuel Cost-Assistance programs as well as consulting foresters. Reduction,Wildlife, Programs Resource Markets 1.6 Encourage and improve agriculture/forestry/ Priority watersheds Landowner Forest Stewardship MDEQ, MFC, Forest stewardship, MSU MDEQ, MFC, MDWFP, Longterm 1.2, 3.1, 3.5 watershed DEQ Policies, MDWFP, MDAC, and MDAC, SWCD, improvements in water land-use planning and BMPs to address nonpoint Stewardship SWCD, ASUES Professional loggers quality. pollution, erosion and water quality issues. Education, Wildlife Professional association, MFA loggers association, MFA

92 Mississippi Key Issue 1: Forest Sustainability

Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas Key Resources Available/ Key Partners and Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Issues that Contribute Stakeholders Required to Potential Partners Success National Addressed Implement Objective

1.1 Promote reforestation and afforestation of Natural range of Stewardship Ed, FRDP, EFCRP, Landowners, Vendors, Reliable FSA, NRCS, MFC, USFS, Acres planted. Acres 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, longleaf pine on appropriate sites within its natural longleaf pine Resource Markets, ECP, State and Forestry Vendors, Seedling Sources, Longleaf Alliance, MSU, managed, Acres 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, range. Forest Health, Private USFS Consultants, Public/ Educational Services and Pole Industry, DOD, TNC, burned 3.7 Wildlife, Wildfire grants, Other non- Private entities Promotional materials, MFC Fuel Reduction USFS Programs which provide funds Consultant Foresters, for implementing CFA, NRCS, FSA, reforestation. Longleaf Alliance. 1.2 Increase use of prescribed burning for Wildfire ruel reduction Stewardship Ed, FRDP, Stewardship Communities at Vendors, consultant Mississippi Prescribed Fire Increase number 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, timber stand improvement and wildlife habitat priority areas Resource Markets, Grant, Mitigation risk, landowners, foresters, National Council, MFC, USFS, Tree of private vendors, 2.2, 3.3, 3.4, development. Forest Health, Grants, Proximity hunters, Forests, State Agencies Farmers, Forest Stewards, increase no. acres 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 Wildlife, Wildfire Grants, WHIP with Forest Land MDWFP, DEQ prescribed burn, Fuel Reduction, Holdings, Natural Policy Resource Mgrs

1.3 Create a natural resource and forest land Not applicable Stewardship Ed, Stewardship Grant, Land Owners, Website, Host, Data, USFS-State and Private Website development 1.2, 3.6 management web-based information clearing Resource Markets, Forest Health Natural Resource spatial and non-spatial, MFC, MSU/Alcorn 1.2,2.2,3.4, 3.6 house to include traditional landowners as well Forest Health, Managers, Non- publications, guides, Cooperative Extension, as underserved landowners. Include resources Wildlife, Wildfire Profit Entities, technical support MFA, MIFI, MDWFP, available through consultant foresters, State and Fuel Reduction, Federal and Federal incentive programs and grants. Climate Change State Agencies, Universities, Alcorn/ MSU Extension Service

1.4 Create a working group to study forest FLAs, WUIs around Stewardship None available at Communities, USFS redesign, Funds MFC, MSU/Alcorn Publication and 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, fragmentation and parcelization impacts on soil, Meridian, Desoto/Tate Ed, Resource this time Underserved to print results as well as Extension Service, educational materials, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 water, wildlife, wildfire, to identify resources Counties, Working Markets, Forest landowners, educational materials, USFS, landowner groups Programs to assist and 3.7 required to assist landowners (especially group would identify Health, Wildlife, Consultants, FIA representing underserved underserved underserved landowners not currently eligible for other priority areas Landownership Vendors landowners, MFA, MDEQ landowners with federal or state assistance). upon completion Policies. property below current program requirements 1.5 Increase stewardship management planning SFLA High Priority Stewardship FRDP, Tree, Farms, Land Owners, NRCS, FSA, MFC, State NRCS, FSA, MFC, MFA, Certified Forest 1.1, 1.2, 3.4, and technical assistance to assist landowners areas. Ed, Resource Consolidated Wood-using and Private Forestry Tree Farm of America, Stewardship. Certified 3.5 and 3.6 in implementing plan recommendations through Markets, Forest Stewardship Grant, facilities, Forestry - USFS, Consulting Private Consultants Tree Farms. Increase utilization of the Tree Farm Program, certification Health, Wildlife, Redesign, Federal Vendors Foresters MDWFP the number by 20% programs, other state, federal and private Wildfire Fuel Cost-Assistance programs as well as consulting foresters. Reduction,Wildlife, Programs Resource Markets 1.6 Encourage and improve agriculture/forestry/ Priority watersheds Landowner Forest Stewardship MDEQ, MFC, Forest stewardship, MSU MDEQ, MFC, MDWFP, Longterm 1.2, 3.1, 3.5 watershed DEQ Policies, MDWFP, MDAC, and MDAC, SWCD, improvements in water land-use planning and BMPs to address nonpoint Stewardship SWCD, ASUES Professional loggers quality. pollution, erosion and water quality issues. Education, Wildlife Professional association, MFA loggers association, MFA

93 Mississippi Key Issue 2: Resource Markets

Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas Key Stakeholders Resources Key Partners/ Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Issues that Contribute Available/ Potential Success National Addressed Required to Partners Objective Implement

2.1 Develop and maintain wood using Applicable Statewide Forest Redesign Landowners, SUM Task Force, SRS - MFC, SUM Directory and 1.2, 2.2, 3.4 , 3.7 directory of timber products outputs and Sustainability, Competitive Grant, Industry, Economic TPO Studies, Economic Task Force, annual update. consumption and trends. Forest Health, Developers, Loggers, Development FIA, Economic Wildfire Fuel Entities involved with Development, Reduction, Wildlife buying or selling in Industry, MFC domestic markets or internationally.

2.2 Develop guidelines and publish for Applicable Statewide Stewardship Ed, BCAP Loggers, Landowners, Stewardship Grants, MSU, USFS, Harvesting 1.1, 2.2, 3.5 harvesting biomass products and the impact Sustainability, Biofuels industry Health Grants, Energy MFC, FSA, Land guidelines, impact on managing forests land. Forest Health Grants, Funds Owners, Wood statement, identify Fuel Industry, biomass availability MDA

2.3 Evaluate potential opportunities to utilize Evaluation would Resource None available at MDA, MSU, ASU , MFA, Economic Development MIFI, MDA, MEC, Publication of 1.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, state’s abundant forest resources including identify priority areas Sustainability, this time MFC Electric Power findings. 3.7 traditional wood product markets and non- upon completion Forest Education Associations, traditional markets such as carbon and MFA , MFC biomass markets, recreation and ecosystem services.

2.4 Establish and maintain a statewide Applicable Statewide Stewardship None available at Landowners, GIS Application and MLA, MDOT, Transportation 1.2, 3.4 – integrated transportation system specifically Ed, Forest this time Industry, Economic Data Development, Mississippi model development, Statewide 1.2, to facilitate movement of forest and wood Sustainability, Developers, Loggers, Financial Assistance Association road use policy, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7 - Gulf products. Forest Health Entities involved with of County other restrictions, Coast 1.2, 3.4 buying or selling in Supervisors, federal/state/local domestic markets or MLA, MFA, CFA, internationally. MSU, ASU, MARIS, MSU, MFC

2.5 Conduct comprehensive forest resource Market study would Forest None available at Landowners, Wood Support and MDA, MFA, MIFI, Market Study and 1.2, 2.2, 3.3, 3.4, and market study to identify traditional identify priority areas Sustainability, this time Using Industries, participation of MFC, SRS-FIA, Annual Action Plan. 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 – markets and potential non-traditional markets upon completion by Forest Health, Forest Product stakeholders, Funding MFC, MSU Statewide 1.2, and to identify forest assets and current ecoregion Wildfire Fuel Industries, Natural for study and publication 2.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, utilization levels Reduction, Wildlife Resource Managers, 3.6, 3.7 Entities involved with buying or selling in domestic markets or internationally markets

94 Mississippi Key Issue 2: Resource Markets

Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas Key Stakeholders Resources Key Partners/ Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Issues that Contribute Available/ Potential Success National Addressed Required to Partners Objective Implement

2.1 Develop and maintain wood using Applicable Statewide Forest Redesign Landowners, SUM Task Force, SRS - MFC, SUM Directory and 1.2, 2.2, 3.4 , 3.7 directory of timber products outputs and Sustainability, Competitive Grant, Industry, Economic TPO Studies, Economic Task Force, annual update. consumption and trends. Forest Health, Developers, Loggers, Development FIA, Economic Wildfire Fuel Entities involved with Development, Reduction, Wildlife buying or selling in Industry, MFC domestic markets or internationally.

2.2 Develop guidelines and publish for Applicable Statewide Stewardship Ed, BCAP Loggers, Landowners, Stewardship Grants, MSU, USFS, Harvesting 1.1, 2.2, 3.5 harvesting biomass products and the impact Sustainability, Biofuels industry Health Grants, Energy MFC, FSA, Land guidelines, impact on managing forests land. Forest Health Grants, Funds Owners, Wood statement, identify Fuel Industry, biomass availability MDA

2.3 Evaluate potential opportunities to utilize Evaluation would Resource None available at MDA, MSU, ASU , MFA, Economic Development MIFI, MDA, MEC, Publication of 1.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, state’s abundant forest resources including identify priority areas Sustainability, this time MFC Electric Power findings. 3.7 traditional wood product markets and non- upon completion Forest Education Associations, traditional markets such as carbon and MFA , MFC biomass markets, recreation and ecosystem services.

2.4 Establish and maintain a statewide Applicable Statewide Stewardship None available at Landowners, GIS Application and MLA, MDOT, Transportation 1.2, 3.4 – integrated transportation system specifically Ed, Forest this time Industry, Economic Data Development, Mississippi model development, Statewide 1.2, to facilitate movement of forest and wood Sustainability, Developers, Loggers, Financial Assistance Association road use policy, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7 - Gulf products. Forest Health Entities involved with of County other restrictions, Coast 1.2, 3.4 buying or selling in Supervisors, federal/state/local domestic markets or MLA, MFA, CFA, internationally. MSU, ASU, MARIS, MSU, MFC

2.5 Conduct comprehensive forest resource Market study would Forest None available at Landowners, Wood Support and MDA, MFA, MIFI, Market Study and 1.2, 2.2, 3.3, 3.4, and market study to identify traditional identify priority areas Sustainability, this time Using Industries, participation of MFC, SRS-FIA, Annual Action Plan. 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 – markets and potential non-traditional markets upon completion by Forest Health, Forest Product stakeholders, Funding MFC, MSU Statewide 1.2, and to identify forest assets and current ecoregion Wildfire Fuel Industries, Natural for study and publication 2.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, utilization levels Reduction, Wildlife Resource Managers, 3.6, 3.7 Entities involved with buying or selling in domestic markets or internationally markets

95 Mississippi Key Issue 3: Landownership Policies

Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas Key Resources Available/ Key Partners and Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Issues that Contribute Stakeholders Required to Implement Potential Partners Success National Addressed Objective

3.1 Create public policy Statewide Forest N/A Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, New policy developed 1.2, 3.1, 3.4, designed to maintain, improve Sustainability economic and traditional Constituent groups are engaged (e.g., MFA Alcorn State University Landowner awareness 3.5 and protect favorable tax Resource Markets forest management Govt. Affairs Committee, MS Farm Bureau, Extension, MFA, MDWFP, campaign developed policies in regard to forestry objectives, Loggers, CFA members, etc.) MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, No negative and land ownership (including Consultant foresters Mississippi Association of setbacks to good capital gains, inheritance tax, Cooperatives, Mississippi policy measures are severance tax, etc) Department of Education, experienced NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Service 3.2 Establish policy/law that Rural forested Forest N/A Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, New policy developed 1.2, 2.2, 3.4 facilitates the improvement of areas of the Sustainability economic and traditional Constituent groups are engaged (e.g., MFA Alcorn State University Improvements to roads roads and bridges (remove state where Resource Markets forest management Govt. Affairs Committee, MS Farm Bureau, Extension, MFA, MDWFP, and bridges are made impacts to traditional logging) bridge/road objectives, Loggers - CFA members, etc.) MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, Legislation enacted improvements specifically MS Loggers MDOT Mississippi Association of to improve roads and needed; Association, Consultant State and federal funding acquired for making Cooperatives, Mississippi bridges priorities to be foresters, County Boards improvements Department of Education, determined. of Supervisors NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Service, County Boards of Supervisors, MS Loggers Association 3.3 Establish policy/law at the Rural forested Forest N/A Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, A standardized 1.2, 3.4 state level that standardizes areas of Sustainability economic and traditional Constituent groups are engaged (e.g., MFA Alcorn State University statewide policy/law county road use, removing the state; Resource Markets forest management Govt. Affairs Committee, MS Farm Bureau, Extension, MFA, MDWFP, is established that restrictive barriers to logging priorities to be objectives, Loggers, CFA members, etc.) MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, addresses road use at determined Consultant foresters, MDOT Mississippi Association of the county level county by County Boards of Cooperatives, Mississippi county. Supervisors Department of Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Service, County Boards of Supervisors, MS Loggers Association 3.4 Protect the “right to Statewide Forest N/A Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, Effective monitoring 1.2, 3.4, 3.5, practice forestry” law and Sustainability economic and traditional Constituent groups are engaged (e.g., MFA Alcorn State University of potential threats 3.6, 3.7 private property rights Resource Markets forest management Govt. Affairs Committee, MS Farm Bureau, Extension, MFA, MDWFP, to abolish or change Forest Health objectives CFA members, etc.) MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, current law Wildfire Fuel Mississippi Association of Reduction Cooperatives, Mississippi Climate Change Department of Education, Wildlife NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Service 3.5 Establish law/policy that Statewide Resource Markets Forest Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, New law or policy is 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, creates new programs or Forest Health Stewardship ecosystem goods/ Constituent groups Alcorn State University established 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, modifies existing programs Stewardship Water Quality services and/or non- Strong lobbying efforts Extension, MFA, MDWFP, Significant grassroots 3.4, 3.5, 3.7 to enable assistance to Education MSU Natural traditional management Support from NGOs with aligned focus on MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, support is evident ecosystem goods/services and/ Wildfire Fuel Resource objectives management objectives Mississippi Association of or non-traditional management Reduction Enterprises, Cooperatives, Mississippi objectives Wildlife NGO programs Department of Education, (TNC, Wildlife NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Mississippi) Service FSA and NRCS programs

96 Mississippi Key Issue 3: Landownership Policies

Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas Key Resources Available/ Key Partners and Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Issues that Contribute Stakeholders Required to Implement Potential Partners Success National Addressed Objective

3.1 Create public policy Statewide Forest N/A Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, New policy developed 1.2, 3.1, 3.4, designed to maintain, improve Sustainability economic and traditional Constituent groups are engaged (e.g., MFA Alcorn State University Landowner awareness 3.5 and protect favorable tax Resource Markets forest management Govt. Affairs Committee, MS Farm Bureau, Extension, MFA, MDWFP, campaign developed policies in regard to forestry objectives, Loggers, CFA members, etc.) MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, No negative and land ownership (including Consultant foresters Mississippi Association of setbacks to good capital gains, inheritance tax, Cooperatives, Mississippi policy measures are severance tax, etc) Department of Education, experienced NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Service 3.2 Establish policy/law that Rural forested Forest N/A Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, New policy developed 1.2, 2.2, 3.4 facilitates the improvement of areas of the Sustainability economic and traditional Constituent groups are engaged (e.g., MFA Alcorn State University Improvements to roads roads and bridges (remove state where Resource Markets forest management Govt. Affairs Committee, MS Farm Bureau, Extension, MFA, MDWFP, and bridges are made impacts to traditional logging) bridge/road objectives, Loggers - CFA members, etc.) MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, Legislation enacted improvements specifically MS Loggers MDOT Mississippi Association of to improve roads and needed; Association, Consultant State and federal funding acquired for making Cooperatives, Mississippi bridges priorities to be foresters, County Boards improvements Department of Education, determined. of Supervisors NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Service, County Boards of Supervisors, MS Loggers Association 3.3 Establish policy/law at the Rural forested Forest N/A Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, A standardized 1.2, 3.4 state level that standardizes areas of Sustainability economic and traditional Constituent groups are engaged (e.g., MFA Alcorn State University statewide policy/law county road use, removing the state; Resource Markets forest management Govt. Affairs Committee, MS Farm Bureau, Extension, MFA, MDWFP, is established that restrictive barriers to logging priorities to be objectives, Loggers, CFA members, etc.) MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, addresses road use at determined Consultant foresters, MDOT Mississippi Association of the county level county by County Boards of Cooperatives, Mississippi county. Supervisors Department of Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Service, County Boards of Supervisors, MS Loggers Association 3.4 Protect the “right to Statewide Forest N/A Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, Effective monitoring 1.2, 3.4, 3.5, practice forestry” law and Sustainability economic and traditional Constituent groups are engaged (e.g., MFA Alcorn State University of potential threats 3.6, 3.7 private property rights Resource Markets forest management Govt. Affairs Committee, MS Farm Bureau, Extension, MFA, MDWFP, to abolish or change Forest Health objectives CFA members, etc.) MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, current law Wildfire Fuel Mississippi Association of Reduction Cooperatives, Mississippi Climate Change Department of Education, Wildlife NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Service 3.5 Establish law/policy that Statewide Resource Markets Forest Active landowner with Legislative support MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, New law or policy is 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, creates new programs or Forest Health Stewardship ecosystem goods/ Constituent groups Alcorn State University established 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, modifies existing programs Stewardship Water Quality services and/or non- Strong lobbying efforts Extension, MFA, MDWFP, Significant grassroots 3.4, 3.5, 3.7 to enable assistance to Education MSU Natural traditional management Support from NGOs with aligned focus on MDA, MDEQ, MSWCC, support is evident ecosystem goods/services and/ Wildfire Fuel Resource objectives management objectives Mississippi Association of or non-traditional management Reduction Enterprises, Cooperatives, Mississippi objectives Wildlife NGO programs Department of Education, (TNC, Wildlife NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Mississippi) Service FSA and NRCS programs

97 Mississippi Key Issue 4: Forest Health

Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas that Key Stakeholders Resources Available/ Partners/ Potential Measure of Success Supports Strategy Areas Issues Contribute Required to Implement Partners National Addressed Objective 4.1. Protect and conserve natural North of Interstate 20 Wildfire Fuel ARRA stimulus funds Landowners, To continue the fight against USFS, local FSA and NRCS Acres treated per county and statewide, 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, forest communities/ecosystems eliminate and South Reduction, and USFS Cooperative Communities, Wood nonnative invasive plants, offices, regional RC&D offices, and costs per unit treatment ($$/acre) will 2.2, 3.3, 3.5 from non-native, invasive plants of Interstate suppress Wildlife, Forest Forestry Assistance Using Industry, State there will need to be special MDOT, MDWFP, Wild Turkey provide annual performance measures through elimination/suppression of (species specific) Sustainability, Program Governments emphasis put forth from Federation, USFWS, Alabama to monitor accomplishments. Over time, invasives (plants) Resource Markets Congress. Funding will need Forestry Commission, Georgia a reduction in acres infested and percent to flow through either existing Forestry Commission, Louisiana change will also reflect accomplishments programs from the USFS or Department of Agriculture & and provide a useful performance measure. new ones with APHIS, FSA or Forestry, local CFA, MFA, MLA, NRCS. MSU, MSUES, MS Cooperative Weed Management Area, MDA and Commerce – Bureau of Plant Industry. 4.2 Collaboratively develop Southeast Mississippi, Wildfire Fuel USFS Cooperative All landowners, Tree Currently, annual funding USFS, local FSA and NRCS Annually report the number of educational 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, statewide action plans with partners with special emphasis Reduction, Forestry Assistance Farmers, Forest amounts are around $100,000 offices, APHIS, Regional RC &D outreach programs, printed brochures 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and stakeholders for non-native, on Jackson County Wildlife, Forest Program, APHIS, Stewards, Loggers, for the current projects. This offices, MDOT, MDWFP, Wild distributed, advertisements in papers, radio and 3.6, 3.7 invasive pests already established and the Interstate 10 Sustainability, MDA and Commerce Vendors base amount will need to be Turkey Federation, USFWS, TV spots/programs. performance will also be and spreading elsewhere in the corridor Resource Markets, – Bureaus of Plant increased to around $200,000 local CFA, MFA, MLA, MSU, measured by the area (e.g., acres, miles, etc) US, and which pose a threat to Stewardship Ed Industry to achieve the long-term MS Cooperative Extension surveyed and impacted as detected from aerial, Mississippi’s forest and shade tree strategies. Service, Mississippi Urban and ground observations, as well as trapping resources (pests) Forestry Council, Georgia or other survey methods. Spots, trees or acres Forestry Commission, Alabama treated, the unit costs associated with such, Forestry Commission, MDA and and the success or failure of treatments will also Commerce – Bureau of Plant reflect accomplishments and performance. Industry. 4.3 Promote thinning and other Priority areas based Wildfire Fuel Southern Pine Beetle All landowners, Tree Currently, annual funding for USFS, local FSA and NRCS Number of annual beetle flights, acreage flown, 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, forest management practices that on high hazard areas Reduction, Prevention Program, Farmers, Forest the SPB prevention program offices, Regional RC &D offices, spots detected, number ground checked, insects 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, encourage sustainable and healthy based on Southern Wildlife, Forest funded thru the USFS; Stewards, Loggers, is $650,000 annually, ARRA MDOT, MDWFP, Wild Turkey detected, number of SPB detected in traps, 3.5, 3.7 forest conditions so that high Pine Beetle Hazard Sustainability, Cooperative Forestry Vendors funding is $897,000 for two Federation, USFWS, local CFA, number of acres of pine plantations thinned, hazard stands are less than 5% Rating Resource Markets, Assistance Program, years and the Cooperative MFA, MLA, MSU, MSUES number of landowners assisted, acres assisted, of the total susceptible host type Stewardship Ed Forest Health Monitoring Forestry Assistance program and number of workshops hosted, number of acreage in the state; Encourage Program, funded by the funding is $220,000 annually. acres converted back to native longleaf pine removal of off-site pine whenever USFS; ARRA federal These funding amounts need possible and restoration of longleaf stimulus funding. to be doubled to vigorously pines on sites where appropriate, Regional longleaf pursue the strategic goals. such that longleaf pine is restored restoration funding will Funding is needed to start MS to at least 25% of its historical need to be obtained to longleaf restoration project. range in the state. (SPB) develop a program for longleaf restoration in MS. 4.4 Educate landowners on the Southwest MS Stewardship Cooperative Forestry All landowners, Tree Funding through the USFS USFS, local FSA and NRCS Number of educational programs presented 1.2, 2.2, 3.4 benefits of maintaining diverse, emphasis; develop Ed, Forest Assistance Program, Farmers, Forest Forest Stewardship program offices, Regional RC &D offices, to different organizations; promotional items healthy, and vigorous forest target areas for Sustainability, funded thru the USFS, Stewards, Loggers, will need to continue to MDOT, MDWFP, Wild Turkey delivered; number of TV, newspaper and/or resources using sound forestry, education outreach Resource Markets, also regional longleaf Vendors, wood using implement this strategy. Federation, USFWS, local radio spots; number of landowners contacted; wildlife, and water quality practices and align with Wildlife, Wildfire restoration funding from industry, Forest product CFA, MFA, MLA, MSU, MS number of stewardship plans written statewide. species-specific target Fuel Reduction the USFS. markets both domestic Cooperative Extension Service, Acres thinned or regenerated after a landowner areas. and foreign, MDA, MFC contact by the MFC. Acres converted back to native longleaf pine 4.5. Emphasize establishing and Historic range of Stewardship Cooperative Forestry Pole and Piling Funding trough the USFS USFS, local FSA and NRCS Number of programs presented to different 1.2, 2.2, 3.4 managing longleaf on soils that are Longleaf Pine Ed, Forest Assistance Program, industry, Tree Farmers, stewardship program will offices, Regional RC &D offices, organizations; promotional items delivered; appropriate for the species. Sustainability, funded thru the USFS, Forest Stewards, All need to continue to implement MDOT, MDWFP, Wild Turkey number of TV, newspaper and/or radio spots; Resource Markets, regional longleaf landowners, Other wood this strategy. Federation, USFWS, local CFA, number of landowners contacted; number of Wildlife, Wildfire restoration funds thru using industry, forest MFA, MLA, MSU, MDA, MSUES stewardship plans written statewide. Acres Fuel Reduction the USFS; America’s product markets both restored to native longleaf pines. longleaf. domestic and foreign

98 Mississippi Key Issue 4: Forest Health

Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas that Key Stakeholders Resources Available/ Partners/ Potential Measure of Success Supports Strategy Areas Issues Contribute Required to Implement Partners National Addressed Objective 4.1. Protect and conserve natural North of Interstate 20 Wildfire Fuel ARRA stimulus funds Landowners, To continue the fight against USFS, local FSA and NRCS Acres treated per county and statewide, 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, forest communities/ecosystems eliminate and South Reduction, and USFS Cooperative Communities, Wood nonnative invasive plants, offices, regional RC&D offices, and costs per unit treatment ($$/acre) will 2.2, 3.3, 3.5 from non-native, invasive plants of Interstate suppress Wildlife, Forest Forestry Assistance Using Industry, State there will need to be special MDOT, MDWFP, Wild Turkey provide annual performance measures through elimination/suppression of (species specific) Sustainability, Program Governments emphasis put forth from Federation, USFWS, Alabama to monitor accomplishments. Over time, invasives (plants) Resource Markets Congress. Funding will need Forestry Commission, Georgia a reduction in acres infested and percent to flow through either existing Forestry Commission, Louisiana change will also reflect accomplishments programs from the USFS or Department of Agriculture & and provide a useful performance measure. new ones with APHIS, FSA or Forestry, local CFA, MFA, MLA, NRCS. MSU, MSUES, MS Cooperative Weed Management Area, MDA and Commerce – Bureau of Plant Industry. 4.2 Collaboratively develop Southeast Mississippi, Wildfire Fuel USFS Cooperative All landowners, Tree Currently, annual funding USFS, local FSA and NRCS Annually report the number of educational 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, statewide action plans with partners with special emphasis Reduction, Forestry Assistance Farmers, Forest amounts are around $100,000 offices, APHIS, Regional RC &D outreach programs, printed brochures 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and stakeholders for non-native, on Jackson County Wildlife, Forest Program, APHIS, Stewards, Loggers, for the current projects. This offices, MDOT, MDWFP, Wild distributed, advertisements in papers, radio and 3.6, 3.7 invasive pests already established and the Interstate 10 Sustainability, MDA and Commerce Vendors base amount will need to be Turkey Federation, USFWS, TV spots/programs. performance will also be and spreading elsewhere in the corridor Resource Markets, – Bureaus of Plant increased to around $200,000 local CFA, MFA, MLA, MSU, measured by the area (e.g., acres, miles, etc) US, and which pose a threat to Stewardship Ed Industry to achieve the long-term MS Cooperative Extension surveyed and impacted as detected from aerial, Mississippi’s forest and shade tree strategies. Service, Mississippi Urban and ground observations, as well as trapping resources (pests) Forestry Council, Georgia or other survey methods. Spots, trees or acres Forestry Commission, Alabama treated, the unit costs associated with such, Forestry Commission, MDA and and the success or failure of treatments will also Commerce – Bureau of Plant reflect accomplishments and performance. Industry. 4.3 Promote thinning and other Priority areas based Wildfire Fuel Southern Pine Beetle All landowners, Tree Currently, annual funding for USFS, local FSA and NRCS Number of annual beetle flights, acreage flown, 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, forest management practices that on high hazard areas Reduction, Prevention Program, Farmers, Forest the SPB prevention program offices, Regional RC &D offices, spots detected, number ground checked, insects 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, encourage sustainable and healthy based on Southern Wildlife, Forest funded thru the USFS; Stewards, Loggers, is $650,000 annually, ARRA MDOT, MDWFP, Wild Turkey detected, number of SPB detected in traps, 3.5, 3.7 forest conditions so that high Pine Beetle Hazard Sustainability, Cooperative Forestry Vendors funding is $897,000 for two Federation, USFWS, local CFA, number of acres of pine plantations thinned, hazard stands are less than 5% Rating Resource Markets, Assistance Program, years and the Cooperative MFA, MLA, MSU, MSUES number of landowners assisted, acres assisted, of the total susceptible host type Stewardship Ed Forest Health Monitoring Forestry Assistance program and number of workshops hosted, number of acreage in the state; Encourage Program, funded by the funding is $220,000 annually. acres converted back to native longleaf pine removal of off-site pine whenever USFS; ARRA federal These funding amounts need possible and restoration of longleaf stimulus funding. to be doubled to vigorously pines on sites where appropriate, Regional longleaf pursue the strategic goals. such that longleaf pine is restored restoration funding will Funding is needed to start MS to at least 25% of its historical need to be obtained to longleaf restoration project. range in the state. (SPB) develop a program for longleaf restoration in MS. 4.4 Educate landowners on the Southwest MS Stewardship Cooperative Forestry All landowners, Tree Funding through the USFS USFS, local FSA and NRCS Number of educational programs presented 1.2, 2.2, 3.4 benefits of maintaining diverse, emphasis; develop Ed, Forest Assistance Program, Farmers, Forest Forest Stewardship program offices, Regional RC &D offices, to different organizations; promotional items healthy, and vigorous forest target areas for Sustainability, funded thru the USFS, Stewards, Loggers, will need to continue to MDOT, MDWFP, Wild Turkey delivered; number of TV, newspaper and/or resources using sound forestry, education outreach Resource Markets, also regional longleaf Vendors, wood using implement this strategy. Federation, USFWS, local radio spots; number of landowners contacted; wildlife, and water quality practices and align with Wildlife, Wildfire restoration funding from industry, Forest product CFA, MFA, MLA, MSU, MS number of stewardship plans written statewide. species-specific target Fuel Reduction the USFS. markets both domestic Cooperative Extension Service, Acres thinned or regenerated after a landowner areas. and foreign, MDA, MFC contact by the MFC. Acres converted back to native longleaf pine 4.5. Emphasize establishing and Historic range of Stewardship Cooperative Forestry Pole and Piling Funding trough the USFS USFS, local FSA and NRCS Number of programs presented to different 1.2, 2.2, 3.4 managing longleaf on soils that are Longleaf Pine Ed, Forest Assistance Program, industry, Tree Farmers, stewardship program will offices, Regional RC &D offices, organizations; promotional items delivered; appropriate for the species. Sustainability, funded thru the USFS, Forest Stewards, All need to continue to implement MDOT, MDWFP, Wild Turkey number of TV, newspaper and/or radio spots; Resource Markets, regional longleaf landowners, Other wood this strategy. Federation, USFWS, local CFA, number of landowners contacted; number of Wildlife, Wildfire restoration funds thru using industry, forest MFA, MLA, MSU, MDA, MSUES stewardship plans written statewide. Acres Fuel Reduction the USFS; America’s product markets both restored to native longleaf pines. longleaf. domestic and foreign

99 Mississippi Key Issue 5: Stewardship Education Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas that Contribute Key Resources Key Partners and Potential Measure of Supports National Strategy Areas Issues Stakeholders Available/ Partners Success Objective Addressed Required to Implement 5.1 Coordinate with partners to Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Private forest Current funding and MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU A combined accounting from All objectives; particularly continue the delivery of current all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project landowners personnel levels are Extension, MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, all partners of individuals 3.6 stewardship education efforts with issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community statewide. needed to continue Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation reached with current emphasis on the delivery of issue (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach this strategy Commission, Mississippi Association of stewardship education efforts specific information in priority areas the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, DWFP Cooperatives, Mississippi Department with emphasis on individuals for key issues. Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work of Education, NRCS, Resource RC&D, reached in issue priority Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts USDA Forest Service areas. This effort could be Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, made with current funding and Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP personnel levels. 5.2 Secure redesign or other Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Private landowners Additional grant MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Success would depend on All objectives; particularly additional grant funding to focus all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project in priority areas for funding will be Extension, Private Natural Resource level of additional grant 3.6 stewardship education and outreach issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community other key issues. needed to implement Professionals (Forestry Consultants), funding received and resulting efforts in priority issue areas of the (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach this strategy MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, individuals and landowners state of Mississippi and multi-state the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, DWFP Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation reached in issue priority areas where these priority areas are Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work Commission, Mississippi Association of areas. shared. This additional grant funding Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts Cooperatives, Mississippi Department of would contribute to increasing Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest efforts for priority issue areas. Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP Service 5.3 Improve methods and delivery Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Underserved Additional funding MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Number of underserved All objectives; particularly of stewardship education and all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project landowners. and working with Extension, Private Natural Resource landowners assisted. 3.6 assistance to underserved issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community partners is needed Professionals (Forestry Consultants), Number and acres of written landowners. (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach to implement this MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, Forest Stewardship plans the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, DWFP strategy. Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation with periodic monitoring for Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work Commission, Mississippi Association of practice implementation in Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts Cooperatives, Mississippi Department of issue priority areas. Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP Service 5.4 Secure additional grant funding Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Underserved Additional grant MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Success would depend on All objectives; particularly to improve delivery and outsourcing all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, CRP, Wetland Reserve landowners. funding will be needed Extension, Private Natural Resource level of additional grant 3.6 of Forest Stewardship Management issue areas Resource Markets, Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP to improve delivery Professionals (Forestry Consultants), funding received and resulting planning for landowners in these (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, and outsourcing MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, landowners reached in priority issue areas including the State. Forest Health, and incentivizing of Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation issue priority areas. Number underserved ownerships. These Wildfire Fuel Forest Stewardship Commission, Mississippi Association of and acres of written Forest plans would focus on specific Reduction, Wildlife, Management planning Cooperatives, Mississippi Department of Stewardship plans with recommendations and practices Climate Change for landowners in Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest periodic monitoring for that would directly address the these priority issue Service practice implementation in landowner’s objectives and trends areas including issue priority areas. and threats associated with these underserved priority issue areas. Depending on ownerships of less funding levels, plan development than ten acres. would be incentivized and outsourced to forestry consultants and other natural resource professionals in these priority issue areas. 5.5 Seek additional funding to Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Students; private Current budgets MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Success would depend on All objectives; particularly improve web-based social media all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project forest landowners in and additional grant Extension, Private Natural Resource level of additional grant 3.6 efforts in Forest Stewardship issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community priority areas. funding would be Professionals (Forestry Consultants), funding received education. Improving the (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach needed to improve MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, interactivity of natural resource the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, MDWFP and enhance existing Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation education websites would provide Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work web sites. Commission, Mississippi Association of a more appealing, and informative Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts Cooperatives, Mississippi Department of experience. Emphasis should be Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest placed on integrating and organizing Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP Service web based information to meet the needs of the priority issue areas. 5.6 Develop with partners, Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Education/Outreach Current and additional MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Develop, produce and All objectives; particularly informational materials and all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project partners (agencies grant funding to Extension, Private Natural Resource distribute informational 3.6 displays promoting the conditions issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community and organizations). develop and purchase Professionals (Forestry Consultants), materials and set up displays and management needs of these (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach informational MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, at museums and other events specific issue priority areas. the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, DWFP materials and Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation promoting the conditions and Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work displays. Commission, Mississippi Association of management needs of these Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts Cooperatives, Mississippi Department specific issue priority areas. Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, of Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Success may be determined Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP Forest Service , MS Museum of Natural from the depletion of materials Science and use of displays 100 Mississippi Key Issue 5: Stewardship Education Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas that Contribute Key Resources Key Partners and Potential Measure of Supports National Strategy Areas Issues Stakeholders Available/ Partners Success Objective Addressed Required to Implement 5.1 Coordinate with partners to Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Private forest Current funding and MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU A combined accounting from All objectives; particularly continue the delivery of current all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project landowners personnel levels are Extension, MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, all partners of individuals 3.6 stewardship education efforts with issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community statewide. needed to continue Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation reached with current emphasis on the delivery of issue (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach this strategy Commission, Mississippi Association of stewardship education efforts specific information in priority areas the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, DWFP Cooperatives, Mississippi Department with emphasis on individuals for key issues. Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work of Education, NRCS, Resource RC&D, reached in issue priority Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts USDA Forest Service areas. This effort could be Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, made with current funding and Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP personnel levels. 5.2 Secure redesign or other Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Private landowners Additional grant MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Success would depend on All objectives; particularly additional grant funding to focus all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project in priority areas for funding will be Extension, Private Natural Resource level of additional grant 3.6 stewardship education and outreach issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community other key issues. needed to implement Professionals (Forestry Consultants), funding received and resulting efforts in priority issue areas of the (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach this strategy MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, individuals and landowners state of Mississippi and multi-state the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, DWFP Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation reached in issue priority areas where these priority areas are Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work Commission, Mississippi Association of areas. shared. This additional grant funding Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts Cooperatives, Mississippi Department of would contribute to increasing Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest efforts for priority issue areas. Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP Service 5.3 Improve methods and delivery Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Underserved Additional funding MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Number of underserved All objectives; particularly of stewardship education and all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project landowners. and working with Extension, Private Natural Resource landowners assisted. 3.6 assistance to underserved issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community partners is needed Professionals (Forestry Consultants), Number and acres of written landowners. (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach to implement this MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, Forest Stewardship plans the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, DWFP strategy. Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation with periodic monitoring for Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work Commission, Mississippi Association of practice implementation in Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts Cooperatives, Mississippi Department of issue priority areas. Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP Service 5.4 Secure additional grant funding Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Underserved Additional grant MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Success would depend on All objectives; particularly to improve delivery and outsourcing all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, CRP, Wetland Reserve landowners. funding will be needed Extension, Private Natural Resource level of additional grant 3.6 of Forest Stewardship Management issue areas Resource Markets, Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP to improve delivery Professionals (Forestry Consultants), funding received and resulting planning for landowners in these (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, and outsourcing MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, landowners reached in priority issue areas including the State. Forest Health, and incentivizing of Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation issue priority areas. Number underserved ownerships. These Wildfire Fuel Forest Stewardship Commission, Mississippi Association of and acres of written Forest plans would focus on specific Reduction, Wildlife, Management planning Cooperatives, Mississippi Department of Stewardship plans with recommendations and practices Climate Change for landowners in Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest periodic monitoring for that would directly address the these priority issue Service practice implementation in landowner’s objectives and trends areas including issue priority areas. and threats associated with these underserved priority issue areas. Depending on ownerships of less funding levels, plan development than ten acres. would be incentivized and outsourced to forestry consultants and other natural resource professionals in these priority issue areas. 5.5 Seek additional funding to Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Students; private Current budgets MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Success would depend on All objectives; particularly improve web-based social media all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project forest landowners in and additional grant Extension, Private Natural Resource level of additional grant 3.6 efforts in Forest Stewardship issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community priority areas. funding would be Professionals (Forestry Consultants), funding received education. Improving the (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach needed to improve MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, interactivity of natural resource the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, MDWFP and enhance existing Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation education websites would provide Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work web sites. Commission, Mississippi Association of a more appealing, and informative Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts Cooperatives, Mississippi Department of experience. Emphasis should be Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Forest placed on integrating and organizing Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP Service web based information to meet the needs of the priority issue areas. 5.6 Develop with partners, Would address Forest MFC Outreach Program, Stewardship and Rural Forestry Assistance, Education/Outreach Current and additional MFC, MSU Forestry Extension, ASU Develop, produce and All objectives; particularly informational materials and all priority Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Forest Health, Forest Protection, Fire Wise, Project partners (agencies grant funding to Extension, Private Natural Resource distribute informational 3.6 displays promoting the conditions issue areas Resource Markets, Learning Tree, Underserved Outreach Programs, Urban and Community and organizations). develop and purchase Professionals (Forestry Consultants), materials and set up displays and management needs of these (landscapes) in Landowner Policies, Forestry, Extension Education Programs, 4-H, FFA, Wood Magic, Teach informational MFA, MDWFP, MDA, MDEQ, at museums and other events specific issue priority areas. the State. Forest Health, Conservation Workshop, CFA, Tree Farm Program, FRDP, RTC, DWFP materials and Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation promoting the conditions and Wildfire Fuel Landowner Assistance Programs, Museum of Natural Science work displays. Commission, Mississippi Association of management needs of these Reduction, Wildlife, shops, BMP workshops and other DEQ grants, Conservation Districts Cooperatives, Mississippi Department specific issue priority areas. Climate Change Conservation Carnivals, Envirothons, Small Farmer’s Conference, CRP, of Education, NRCS, RC&D, USDA Success may be determined Wetland Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, EQIP Forest Service , MS Museum of Natural from the depletion of materials Science and use of displays 101 Mississippi Key Issue 6: Wildfire Fuel Reduction Long-term Priority Secondary Issues Program Key Resources Available/ Key Partners and Potential Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Addressed Areas that Stakeholders Required to Partners Success National Contribute Implement Objective 6.1 Increase the Number of Set Priority Areas Stewardship Ed, NA Communities at risk, MFC, MSU Extension, USFS National Forests in Increase by 28 annually 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 Certified Prescribed Burn based on location Wildlife, Forest Health, landowners forest USFS National Forests Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, Managers (CPBM) of CPB Managers Forest Sustainability and non-forest, MS Insurance Department State Fire property owners in Marshall , Consulting Foresters, All WUI, TIMOS Miss. Agencies with land holdings, MS Wildland Fire Advisory Council, Prescribed Burn Council, MFC 6.2 Increase the acres Priority landscape Stewardship Ed, FRDP, Communities at risk, One Message Many Voices USFS National Forests in Increase by 10,000 plus 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 prescribed burned annually in determined by Wildlife, Forest Health, Consolidated landowners forest Campaign, Consultant Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, annually high risk areas number of annual Forest Sustainability Stewardship and non-forest, Foresters, Vendors, MS Insurance Department State Fire wildfires by Grants, Hazard property owners National Forest Crews Marshall , Consulting Foresters, county Mitigation and in WUI, TIMOS, All Miss. Agencies with forest Community USFS National land holdings, Ms Department of Protection Grants Forests, other Environmental Quality, ASU, MSU, Federal landowners, MS Wildland Fire Advisory Council, non-profits, state Prescribed Burn Council, MFC agencies and wildlife agencies 6.3 Increase the use of SPB using Stewardship Ed, FRDP, USFS Communities at risk, MFC, USFS, MDWFP USFS National Forests in As funding is available to 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 prescribe burning using counties with Wildlife, Forest Health, Stewardship landowners forest Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, increase the number of current landowners assistance high wildfire Forest Sustainability Grant, Forest and non-forest, MS Insurance Department State Fire acres treated each year by programs reduce fuel loading occurance ratings Health Grant, property owners Marshall, MS Wildland Fire Advisory 5%. from native plants and non- and high fuels. Preparedness in WUI, TIMOS, Council, Prescribed Burn Council, native invasive species plants Grants, Hazard USFS National MFC Mitigation and Forests, other Community federal landowners, Protection Grants non-profits, state agencies and wildlife agencies 6.4 Identify high fire risk areas High risk areas Stewardship Ed, Consolidated Property owners Southern Wildfire Risk USFS National Forests in Annual Assessment and 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 throughout the state. based on fire Wildlife, Forest Health, Grant - USFS located in Assessment, FIRES 9.3. Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, Update occurrence. Forest Sustainability communities at MS Insurance Department State Fire risk and the WUI, Marshall, MS Wildland Fire Advisory state and federal Council, Prescribed Burn Council, agencies, counties MFC 6.5 Promote the 34 Counties Stewardship Ed, Hazard Mitigation Property owners Counties, Vendors USFS National Forests in Perform Mitigation Burns on 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 implementation of mitigation with CWPPs for Wildlife, Forest Health, Program located in Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, high risk areas in 5 counties burning in high risk areas mitigation burning Forest Sustainability communities at MS Insurance Department State Fire per year. Complete CWPP identified in the 34 County risk and the WUI, Marshall, MS Wildland Fire Advisory in remaining counties. Wildfire Protection Plans. state and federal Council, Prescribed Burn Council, Continue to provide funding to agencies, counties MFC insure plans are completed in remaining counties. 6.6 Provide equipment to VFD vide map in high Stewardship Ed, FEPP, FFP, VFA Property owners MFC, USFS, Volunteer Fire USFS National Forests in Goals are to obtain 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 for the use in controlling non- risk fire areas Wildlife, Forest Health, Grants, NFP/PFA located in Departments Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, approximately 200 pieces forest fires both within the WUI Forest Sustainability Grant communities at MS Insurance Department State Fire of equipment/year (which and outside the WUI risk and the WUI, Marshall, MS Wildland Fire Advisory includes both vehicles and state and federal Council, Prescribed Burn Council, other equipment), and fund agencies, non-profit MFC 60 VFD’s through the grant ownership, TIMOs. program.

102 Mississippi Key Issue 6: Wildfire Fuel Reduction Long-term Priority Secondary Issues Program Key Resources Available/ Key Partners and Potential Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Addressed Areas that Stakeholders Required to Partners Success National Contribute Implement Objective 6.1 Increase the Number of Set Priority Areas Stewardship Ed, NA Communities at risk, MFC, MSU Extension, USFS National Forests in Increase by 28 annually 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 Certified Prescribed Burn based on location Wildlife, Forest Health, landowners forest USFS National Forests Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, Managers (CPBM) of CPB Managers Forest Sustainability and non-forest, MS Insurance Department State Fire property owners in Marshall , Consulting Foresters, All WUI, TIMOS Miss. Agencies with land holdings, MS Wildland Fire Advisory Council, Prescribed Burn Council, MFC 6.2 Increase the acres Priority landscape Stewardship Ed, FRDP, Communities at risk, One Message Many Voices USFS National Forests in Increase by 10,000 plus 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 prescribed burned annually in determined by Wildlife, Forest Health, Consolidated landowners forest Campaign, Consultant Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, annually high risk areas number of annual Forest Sustainability Stewardship and non-forest, Foresters, Vendors, MS Insurance Department State Fire wildfires by Grants, Hazard property owners National Forest Crews Marshall , Consulting Foresters, county Mitigation and in WUI, TIMOS, All Miss. Agencies with forest Community USFS National land holdings, Ms Department of Protection Grants Forests, other Environmental Quality, ASU, MSU, Federal landowners, MS Wildland Fire Advisory Council, non-profits, state Prescribed Burn Council, MFC agencies and wildlife agencies 6.3 Increase the use of SPB using Stewardship Ed, FRDP, USFS Communities at risk, MFC, USFS, MDWFP USFS National Forests in As funding is available to 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 prescribe burning using counties with Wildlife, Forest Health, Stewardship landowners forest Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, increase the number of current landowners assistance high wildfire Forest Sustainability Grant, Forest and non-forest, MS Insurance Department State Fire acres treated each year by programs reduce fuel loading occurance ratings Health Grant, property owners Marshall, MS Wildland Fire Advisory 5%. from native plants and non- and high fuels. Preparedness in WUI, TIMOS, Council, Prescribed Burn Council, native invasive species plants Grants, Hazard USFS National MFC Mitigation and Forests, other Community federal landowners, Protection Grants non-profits, state agencies and wildlife agencies 6.4 Identify high fire risk areas High risk areas Stewardship Ed, Consolidated Property owners Southern Wildfire Risk USFS National Forests in Annual Assessment and 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 throughout the state. based on fire Wildlife, Forest Health, Grant - USFS located in Assessment, FIRES 9.3. Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, Update occurrence. Forest Sustainability communities at MS Insurance Department State Fire risk and the WUI, Marshall, MS Wildland Fire Advisory state and federal Council, Prescribed Burn Council, agencies, counties MFC 6.5 Promote the 34 Counties Stewardship Ed, Hazard Mitigation Property owners Counties, Vendors USFS National Forests in Perform Mitigation Burns on 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 implementation of mitigation with CWPPs for Wildlife, Forest Health, Program located in Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, high risk areas in 5 counties burning in high risk areas mitigation burning Forest Sustainability communities at MS Insurance Department State Fire per year. Complete CWPP identified in the 34 County risk and the WUI, Marshall, MS Wildland Fire Advisory in remaining counties. Wildfire Protection Plans. state and federal Council, Prescribed Burn Council, Continue to provide funding to agencies, counties MFC insure plans are completed in remaining counties. 6.6 Provide equipment to VFD vide map in high Stewardship Ed, FEPP, FFP, VFA Property owners MFC, USFS, Volunteer Fire USFS National Forests in Goals are to obtain 1.2, 2.1, 3.3 for the use in controlling non- risk fire areas Wildlife, Forest Health, Grants, NFP/PFA located in Departments Mississippi, USFWS, MDWFP , TNC, approximately 200 pieces forest fires both within the WUI Forest Sustainability Grant communities at MS Insurance Department State Fire of equipment/year (which and outside the WUI risk and the WUI, Marshall, MS Wildland Fire Advisory includes both vehicles and state and federal Council, Prescribed Burn Council, other equipment), and fund agencies, non-profit MFC 60 VFD’s through the grant ownership, TIMOs. program.

103 Mississippi Key Issue 7: Climate Change Long-term Priority Secondary Program Key Resources Available/ Key Partners and Measure of Supports National Strategy Areas Issues Areas that Stakeholders Required to Implement Potential Partners Success Objective Addressed Contribute 7.1 Encourage afforestation of Target areas for Forest Sustainabil- FRDP, Forest Landowners with WRP, CRP, HFRP MFC, NRCS, FSA, MFC, Acres enrolled and 1.1, 3.2. 3.7 agriculture, pasture and open WRP and CRP ity, Wildlife Stewardship large potential af- ASU, MSU, MDWFP, planted. fields. programs, open forestation areas MFA, DOD land (agriculture, (in row crops, pas- pasture, open ture, open fields) fields) adjacent to public lands. 7.2 Support education out- Target areas for Forest Sustain- FRDP, Forest Landowners with WRP, CRP MFC, NRCS, FSA, MFC, Number of new educa- 1.1, 3.2. 3.7 reach and awareness efforts WRP and CRP ability, Resource Stewardship large potential af- ASU, MSU, SFI, MFA, tion programs; par- in state on how landowners programs. Markets, Wildlife forestation areas Carbon Fund ticipation in education/ can participate in carbon mar- (in row crops, pas- outreach efforts. ket programs. ture, open fields) 7.3 Encourage participation in Statewide on pri- Forest Sustain- FRDP, Forest Private non-indus- SFI, FSC, other certification pro- SFI, MFC, FSC, MSU, Number of partici- 1.1, 3.2. 3.7 forestry certification programs. vate lands ability, Resource Stewardship trial forest land- grams ASU, MFA, MFC pants, acres enrolled. Markets, Landown- owners with young er Policy Changes, forests. Wildlife 7.4 Conserve/protect existing Mature forests in Forest health, For- Forest Legacy, Public land manag- Conservation easements and land MDWFP, USFS, USFWS, Acres protected 1.1, 1.2, 3.2. 3.5, 3.7, forests with highest carbon protected public est Sustainability, other private ers, private land- protection programs on private and MDMR, MFC, land trusts, through easements, stores (moist, mature forest- areas and adja- Wildlife land easement owners adjacent to public lands NPS, DOD, MFC conservation pro- lands) in large blocks on pub- cent private lands. and acquisition public or protected grams. lic lands and adjacent private Forest Legacy programs. forested areas. lands. Areas

104 Mississippi Key Issue 7: Climate Change Long-term Priority Secondary Program Key Resources Available/ Key Partners and Measure of Supports National Strategy Areas Issues Areas that Stakeholders Required to Implement Potential Partners Success Objective Addressed Contribute 7.1 Encourage afforestation of Target areas for Forest Sustainabil- FRDP, Forest Landowners with WRP, CRP, HFRP MFC, NRCS, FSA, MFC, Acres enrolled and 1.1, 3.2. 3.7 agriculture, pasture and open WRP and CRP ity, Wildlife Stewardship large potential af- ASU, MSU, MDWFP, planted. fields. programs, open forestation areas MFA, DOD land (agriculture, (in row crops, pas- pasture, open ture, open fields) fields) adjacent to public lands. 7.2 Support education out- Target areas for Forest Sustain- FRDP, Forest Landowners with WRP, CRP MFC, NRCS, FSA, MFC, Number of new educa- 1.1, 3.2. 3.7 reach and awareness efforts WRP and CRP ability, Resource Stewardship large potential af- ASU, MSU, SFI, MFA, tion programs; par- in state on how landowners programs. Markets, Wildlife forestation areas Carbon Fund ticipation in education/ can participate in carbon mar- (in row crops, pas- outreach efforts. ket programs. ture, open fields) 7.3 Encourage participation in Statewide on pri- Forest Sustain- FRDP, Forest Private non-indus- SFI, FSC, other certification pro- SFI, MFC, FSC, MSU, Number of partici- 1.1, 3.2. 3.7 forestry certification programs. vate lands ability, Resource Stewardship trial forest land- grams ASU, MFA, MFC pants, acres enrolled. Markets, Landown- owners with young er Policy Changes, forests. Wildlife 7.4 Conserve/protect existing Mature forests in Forest health, For- Forest Legacy, Public land manag- Conservation easements and land MDWFP, USFS, USFWS, Acres protected 1.1, 1.2, 3.2. 3.5, 3.7, forests with highest carbon protected public est Sustainability, other private ers, private land- protection programs on private and MDMR, MFC, land trusts, through easements, stores (moist, mature forest- areas and adja- Wildlife land easement owners adjacent to public lands NPS, DOD, MFC conservation pro- lands) in large blocks on pub- cent private lands. and acquisition public or protected grams. lic lands and adjacent private Forest Legacy programs. forested areas. lands. Areas

105 Mississippi Key Issue 8: Wildlife Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas Key Resources Key Partners and Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Issues that Contribute Stakeholders Available/ Potential Partners Success National Addressed Required to Objective Implement 8.1 Encourage and improve management FLAs, East Gulf Coastal Plain Stewardship Ed., Forest Health, Private landowners, MFC, Fire MFC, MS Prescribed Burn Acres burned. 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, of forested habitat by controlled burning Climate change Forest Protection programs, MSUES Council, TNC, USFS, private 2.2, 3.5, 3.7 at necessary frequencies and seasons. landowners, MSU, ASU, DOD, Community Colleges 8.2 Encourage restoration and improved FLAs, Statewide Forest Sustainability, Forest Stewardship MFC, MDWFP, America’s longleaf, MFC, MDWFP, MMNS, Acres improved/ 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, management of altered/degraded forest Stewardship Ed., MMNS, Conservation NRCS and FSA, Conservation Organizations, restored/enhanced. 3.5, 3.7 habitat Climate change Organizations, NRCS, MFC NRCS, FSA, DOD, when possible. FSA Community Colleges 8.3 Discourage incompatible forestry Upper East Gulf Coastal Forest Sustainability, Loggers, non- MSUES MFC, MFA, MSU CES, ASU 1.2, 2.2,3.5 practices such as bedding as a method Plain, East Gulf Coastal Plain Stewardship Ed. industrial and industrial CES, MDEQ, TNC,MDWFP, of site preparation and planting extremely landowners, consultant consultant foresters high stocking densities. forster 8.4 Encourage buffers and improve land High priority drainages Forest Sustainability, Forest Stewardship Landowners adjacent MDEQ MFC, MFA, MSU CES, ASU Increase in SMZs, 1.1, 2.2, use identified by CWCS- Stewardship Ed. to aquatic areas CES, MDEQ, TNC,MDWFP, water quality changes 3.1,3.5,3.7 practices adjacent to streams Tombigbee, Northeast Hills/ (streams, lakes, DOD, Community Colleges in streams, increase (Streamside TN River, Ephemeral Ponds, reservoirs) in forested riparian Management Zones) and other aquatic/ Pascagoula River, Lower areas. wetland habitats. Coastal Plain/Pearl River. 8.5 Provide public education and Statewide Stewardship Ed. Forest Stewardship MFC, MMNS, MMNS, State MFC, MMNS, MDWFP, Number of 3.6 conservation of Species of Greatest MDWFP, USFWS, wildlife grants USFWS, USFS, Conservation outreach programs Conservation Need (SGCN) and/or their USFS, Conservation Organizations provided; number habitats. Organizations of participants; new programs. 8.6 Promote and develop landowner Conservation Priority areas Land Ownership Forest Legacy NRCS, FSA, State CWCS NRCS, FSA, State Technical Number of 1.1,3.5,3.6 incentive and assistance programs for identified through WRP, CRP, Policies, Stewardship Technical Committee, Committee, MDWFP, MFC, participants in conservation of SGCN and their habitats. WHIP, PFW, HFRP, FLP and Ed. MDWFP, MFC, MMNS programs; number of LIP. new programs. 8.7 Encourage retention, preservation, FLAs, Areas adjacent to Forest Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Private landowners Conservation Land trusts, conservation Acres protected 1.1, 3.4, 3.5, and conservation of remaining natural public lands, priority areas Land Ownership Forest Health adjacent to public lands organizations, organizations, Sportsmen’s through CEs, MOAs, 3.6, 3.7 habitat and habitat corridors between for WRP, CRP, WHIP, HFRP, Poilicies and waterways. Conservation organizations, MFC, USFS, land acqusitions protected forested blocks through Partners for Fish and Wildlife, easements, Forest NRCS, FSA, USFWS, within identifed purchase, conservation easements and WHIP, LIP, Coastal Preserves, Legacy, ACUB, MDWFP, MDMR, SOSDOD forested blocks. MOAs. Riparian corridors between MSU Foundation large forested blocks (public lands) 8.8 Develop wildlife manual/guide for Applicable to all Stewardship Stewardship Ed, Tree, Farms, Hunters, Outdoor MSU and ASU MSU Wildlife Dept, MDWFP, Complete Guide/ 1.1, 1.2, 3.4, 3.5 incorporating species-specific wildlife plans in state. Resource Markets, Consolidated Sportsman, Extension Services, Longleaf Alliance, USFS, Manual and update and 3.6 recommendations into Stewardship Forest Health, Stewardship Grant, Landowners, Wildlife USFWS, MDWFP, MFC Planwriter and SIMS Management Plans developed by MFC Wildlife, Wildfire Fuel Redesign, Federal agencies, Landowners, Longleaf Alliance, Map to incorporate foresters. Update Plan writer and SIMS Reduction Cost-Assistance MFC Private Land CFA, USFS-State recommendations Map to include those recommendations Programs Foresters and Private, USFS- contained within the and practices. National Forests Manual

106 Mississippi Key Issue 8: Wildlife Long-term Priority Secondary Program Areas Key Resources Key Partners and Measure of Supports Strategy Areas Issues that Contribute Stakeholders Available/ Potential Partners Success National Addressed Required to Objective Implement 8.1 Encourage and improve management FLAs, East Gulf Coastal Plain Stewardship Ed., Forest Health, Private landowners, MFC, Fire MFC, MS Prescribed Burn Acres burned. 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, of forested habitat by controlled burning Climate change Forest Protection programs, MSUES Council, TNC, USFS, private 2.2, 3.5, 3.7 at necessary frequencies and seasons. landowners, MSU, ASU, DOD, Community Colleges 8.2 Encourage restoration and improved FLAs, Statewide Forest Sustainability, Forest Stewardship MFC, MDWFP, America’s longleaf, MFC, MDWFP, MMNS, Acres improved/ 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, management of altered/degraded forest Stewardship Ed., MMNS, Conservation NRCS and FSA, Conservation Organizations, restored/enhanced. 3.5, 3.7 habitat Climate change Organizations, NRCS, MFC NRCS, FSA, DOD, when possible. FSA Community Colleges 8.3 Discourage incompatible forestry Upper East Gulf Coastal Forest Sustainability, Loggers, non- MSUES MFC, MFA, MSU CES, ASU 1.2, 2.2,3.5 practices such as bedding as a method Plain, East Gulf Coastal Plain Stewardship Ed. industrial and industrial CES, MDEQ, TNC,MDWFP, of site preparation and planting extremely landowners, consultant consultant foresters high stocking densities. forster 8.4 Encourage buffers and improve land High priority drainages Forest Sustainability, Forest Stewardship Landowners adjacent MDEQ MFC, MFA, MSU CES, ASU Increase in SMZs, 1.1, 2.2, use identified by CWCS- Stewardship Ed. to aquatic areas CES, MDEQ, TNC,MDWFP, water quality changes 3.1,3.5,3.7 practices adjacent to streams Tombigbee, Northeast Hills/ (streams, lakes, DOD, Community Colleges in streams, increase (Streamside TN River, Ephemeral Ponds, reservoirs) in forested riparian Management Zones) and other aquatic/ Pascagoula River, Lower areas. wetland habitats. Coastal Plain/Pearl River. 8.5 Provide public education and Statewide Stewardship Ed. Forest Stewardship MFC, MMNS, MMNS, State MFC, MMNS, MDWFP, Number of 3.6 conservation of Species of Greatest MDWFP, USFWS, wildlife grants USFWS, USFS, Conservation outreach programs Conservation Need (SGCN) and/or their USFS, Conservation Organizations provided; number habitats. Organizations of participants; new programs. 8.6 Promote and develop landowner Conservation Priority areas Land Ownership Forest Legacy NRCS, FSA, State CWCS NRCS, FSA, State Technical Number of 1.1,3.5,3.6 incentive and assistance programs for identified through WRP, CRP, Policies, Stewardship Technical Committee, Committee, MDWFP, MFC, participants in conservation of SGCN and their habitats. WHIP, PFW, HFRP, FLP and Ed. MDWFP, MFC, MMNS programs; number of LIP. new programs. 8.7 Encourage retention, preservation, FLAs, Areas adjacent to Forest Sustainability, Forest Legacy, Private landowners Conservation Land trusts, conservation Acres protected 1.1, 3.4, 3.5, and conservation of remaining natural public lands, priority areas Land Ownership Forest Health adjacent to public lands organizations, organizations, Sportsmen’s through CEs, MOAs, 3.6, 3.7 habitat and habitat corridors between for WRP, CRP, WHIP, HFRP, Poilicies and waterways. Conservation organizations, MFC, USFS, land acqusitions protected forested blocks through Partners for Fish and Wildlife, easements, Forest NRCS, FSA, USFWS, within identifed purchase, conservation easements and WHIP, LIP, Coastal Preserves, Legacy, ACUB, MDWFP, MDMR, SOSDOD forested blocks. MOAs. Riparian corridors between MSU Foundation large forested blocks (public lands) 8.8 Develop wildlife manual/guide for Applicable to all Stewardship Stewardship Ed, Tree, Farms, Hunters, Outdoor MSU and ASU MSU Wildlife Dept, MDWFP, Complete Guide/ 1.1, 1.2, 3.4, 3.5 incorporating species-specific wildlife plans in state. Resource Markets, Consolidated Sportsman, Extension Services, Longleaf Alliance, USFS, Manual and update and 3.6 recommendations into Stewardship Forest Health, Stewardship Grant, Landowners, Wildlife USFWS, MDWFP, MFC Planwriter and SIMS Management Plans developed by MFC Wildlife, Wildfire Fuel Redesign, Federal agencies, Landowners, Longleaf Alliance, Map to incorporate foresters. Update Plan writer and SIMS Reduction Cost-Assistance MFC Private Land CFA, USFS-State recommendations Map to include those recommendations Programs Foresters and Private, USFS- contained within the and practices. National Forests Manual

107 VII. State Forestry Programs and Resources

The 2008 Farm Bill provides funding for improve the health of urban and rural landowner assistance to qualifying owners forests and related economies. These of forested property or woodlands if future programs increase cost effectiveness plans or goals for their property include: through the use of partnerships in delivery; increase values through sustained zz Conserving soil and water resources productivity of forests, are voluntary, zz Establishing wildlife habitat and use non-regulatory approaches. zz Sustaining woodlands zz Implementing a forest management plan The following is a description of all zz Restoring wetlands major forestry programs in the state, and is organized as follows: The Farm Bill also establishes the USDA’s authority over financial incentive programs A. MFC Programs administered by various agencies. MFC partners with the USDA’s State and Private A. 1. State and Private Forestry (S&PF) division to deliver forest Forestry Programs management assistance and expertise to A.1.1 Forest Protection - Fire a diverse group of landowners, including A.1.2 Forest Health small woodlot, tribal, state, and federal, A.1.3 Forest Legacy through a cost-effective, non-regulatory A.1.4 Forest Stewardship partnership. S&PF is the federal leader in A.1.5 Urban and Community providing technical and financial assistance Forestry to landowners and resource managers A. 2. Other MFC Programs to help sustain the nation’s forests and A.2.1 Forest Management protect communities and the environment A.2.2. Forest Protection from wildland fires. State S&PF funding is A.2.3. Forest Information allocated to the state in both non-competitive A.2.4. Resources Analysis/ and competitive methods based on program regulations and regional priorities. Economic Development These S&PF cooperative programs are A.2.5. Underserved Landowner administered and implemented through a Outreach partnership between the State of Mississippi A.2.6. Urban and Community (through MFC), the USFS and many Forestry other private and government entities. A.2.7. Forest Inventory These programs promote the health and Analysis and productivity of forestlands and rural A.2.8. Mississippi Statewide economies and are the primary, but not sole, Forestry Water delivery mechanism for implementing major Quality Program strategies recommended in this document. B. Other Programs Emphasis for S&PF programs focuses on forest sustainability and the production of B.1. State and Federal Forest Land commodity and amenity values such as Conservation Programs wildlife, water quality and environmental B.2. Non-Government Programs services. The goal is to maintain and 108 S&PF programs includes five current S&PF State Fire Assistance Program programs (Forest Protection, Forest Health, The State Fire Assistance Program Forest Legacy, Forest Stewardship and (SFA) Urban and Community Forestry) and each provides financial and technical program’s goals and objectives. Other support directly to the states to enhance agency programs that MFC coordinates firefighting capacity, support community- are described in detail followed by a based hazard mitigation, and expand description of other federal, state and non- outreach and education to homeowners and government forest conservation programs communities concerning fire prevention. which represent current potential partners The program requires a 50-50 match by and resources that can be leveraged the state and is delivered by MFC. to implement proposed forest resource As a result of the National Fire Plan strategies described Chapters V and VI. and the Healthy Forest Restoration Agencies and programs are also referenced Act, the hazardous fuels reduction in the strategic issues matrix in Chapter VI. component is a major part of the State Note that this is not an exhaustive list of all Fire Assistance Program. The hazardous forestry programs in the state, but rather fuels application and selection process an overview of the major programs. is managed by the Western States Fire Managers. This component, along with most other fuels mitigation funds provided by federal agencies and the state, is A. MFC PROGRAMS coordinated through a collaborative inter- A.1. MFC State and Private agency effort. Some benefits include: Forestry Programs (S&PF) zz Complements federal firefighting Each S&PF program is described and forces to optimize fire protection includes the program justification, scope of across ownerships. work and methodology for implementation, zz Complements hazardous mitigation current geographic area of focus, projected efforts across ownership to accomplishments and timeline taken from reduce risk to communities. each programs annual grant narrative. zz Enhances local fire protection entities capability and A.1.1 Forest Protection – Fire capacity (training, equipment, preparedness, and education). Fire Management Programs – S&PF zz Engages of communities and fire management programs support fire homeowners to be able to preparedness, suppression/support, recognize interface fire hazards equipment, training, community mitigation, and provide them with opportunities prescribed burns and hazardous fuels to develop local solutions. reduction. MFC partners with S&PF and zz Provides a fire protection training delivers a variety of fire management link to volunteer fire departments. programs such as State Fire Assistance, National State Fire Plan – State Fire The SFA Program is a component of the Assistance and Program Preparedness, Cooperative Fire Protection Program Volunteer Fire Assistance, National Fire (CFPP) and is authorized by Congress Plan – Volunteer Fire Assistance Program through the CFAA of 1978, (PL 95-313 and Community Fire Protection. as amended). Funds are distributed to state foresters based on recognition of the minimum need for all states to

109 maintain and enhance coordination and to provide personnel for the compacts. communication with federal agencies. Qualified personnel will participate Funds provide financial assistance; technical in upper level courses to strengthen training and equipment to ensure federal, overall fire management capabilities. state and local fire agencies can deliver Methodology: a coordinated response to wildfire. The goal of the SFA Program in Mississippi Selected MFC personnel should attend is to allow the continuing emphasis the following training, as circumstances on advanced fire training to make the allow. SFA program funds will be utilized best use of dwindling resources, other to supplement state travel funds for fire training to increase the efficiency of personnel to travel to selected meetings remaining personnel and maintaining the and participate as part of training cadres. capability to assist other compact states D-310 Expanded Dispatch and support national fire emergencies. Support Dispatcher The end result will be more efficient D-311 Initial Attack Dispatcher protection for the citizens of Mississippi. FI-210 Fire Cause and Determination Justification: I-100 Introduction to the Incident Command System – Conducted at the District The State of Mississippi contains 18.6 million level, as dictated by employee turnover acres of timbered and non-cultivatable land I-200 Basic ICS for which MFC is responsible by statute to I-300 Intermediate ICS suppress wildland fires. Annually, an average I-400 Advanced ICS of more than 3,200 fires will burn 56,000 L-180 Human Factors on the Fireline acres. Also according to the Southern – Conducted at the District Wildfire Risk Assessment (SWRA) there are level, as dictated by turnover 1755 communities at risk (CAR) to wildland L-280 Followership to Leadership fire. Currently the MFC has 120 tractor/plow M-410 Facilitative Instructor units and 35 Type 6 Engines statewide to Rx-410 Smoke Management Techniques suppress wildland fires. These resources RT-130 Fire Refresher Training are available for compact dispatches in S-110 Basic Fire Suppression Orientation the Southeastern and South Central Fire – Conducted at the District level, Compacts. Depending on the number as dictated by employee turnover of personnel available, one 19-member S-130 Basic Firefighter – Conducted handtool crew qualified as Type 1 and at the District level, as dictated 2 firefighters will be maintained for crew by employee turnover dispatch or individual squads for interagency S-131 Advanced Firefighter crew details. Training is essential to S-190 Basic Fire Behavior – Conducted improve firefighters’ ability and safety. at the District level, as dictated by employee turnover Scope of Work: S-200 Initial Attack Incident Commander MFC will continue to improve the S-211 Portable Pumps and Water Use effectiveness of its fire suppression forces S-212 Wildfire Power saws through training in basic level, intermediate S-215 Fire Operations in the Urban Interface and advanced courses. Agency plans S-230 Single Resource Crew Boss are to continue to develop individuals S-231 Single Resource Engine Boss for positions on Incident Management S-232 Single Resource Dozer Boss Teams for use in and out of state and S-233 Single Resource Tractor/Plow Boss

110 S-260 Fire Business Management level, as dictated by employee turnover S-271 Helicopter Crew Member S-290 Intermediate Fire Behavior Basic Supervisor Course S-378 Air Tactical Group Supervisor Garmin Training S-445 Incident Training Specialist S-491 Intermediate National Fire Danger Location: Statewide Rating System (NFDRS) Accomplishment Reporting: Weather Information Management SFA reported accomplishments must System (WIMS) show measurable results and the cost/ RAWS Maintenance benefit or value added to communities and resources involved, i.e., did the project Fire Fitness Program benefit people, communities and/or the GIS Specialist landscape. It should include estimates on the number of people who benefitted from Training in related or supportive the project; community wildfire protection subject matter areas: plans, fuel reduction, acres treated, etc. In accordance with the Administrative Cultural Diversity/Civil Rights Awareness – Regulations (7 CFR 3016) accomplishment Conducted at the district level as dictated by reports are due on annual basis for the employee turnover or currency requirements period ending September 30, of each year, Title VI & VII Training – Conducted statewide and are due no later than December 31. as dictated by employee turnover or MFC is also responsible for updating currency requirements (currently 3 years) all items included in the National Fire First Aid/CPR – Conducted at the Plan Operations and Reporting System District level, as dictated by employee (NFPORS) database, Community turnover and currency requirements Assistance module by October 31 of each year. States are also asked to update the Defensive Driving – Conducted at the Annual Wildfire Summary Report (AWSR) District level, as dictated by employee by January 31 of each year. The region’s turnover or currency requirements Cooperative Fire Program Manager is available to assist in these reporting Dispatch Procedures – Dispatch and other requirements. States are responsible for Basic Emergency Telecommunicator the accomplishment of all listed activities – Dispatch and other described with the support of total funds allotted for the fiscal year. Adjustments in FIRES 9.3 Dispatch Program planned activities/tasks during the year must – Dispatch and other be negotiated with the Fire and Aviation Unit. Fire Shelter Training/Refresher – National Fire Plan, State All fire personnel will attend Fire Assistance Program

Prescribed Burning Short course The National Fire Plan, State Fire Assistance GPS For Fire Management (NFP-SFA) Program is a component of the Cooperative Fire Protection Program RTI/SIMS Mapping Training and is authorized by Congress through the Workforce Violence Awareness/ Prevention – Conducted at the District 111 Department of Interior and Related Agencies of forest fuels caused by years of active Appropriation. Funds are distributed to fire suppression. This and a lack of State Foresters based on recognition of the personnel, time and the limiting effects of minimum need for all states to maintain and air quality issues has restricted how much enhance coordination and communication prescribed burning can be done to mitigate with federal agencies. Fifty percent of these hazardous fuel buildups. In many instances funds are to provide financial assistance, these fuels are located within reach of technical training and equipment to ensure homes, municipalities, developments federal, state and local fire agencies and communities. Homeowners are not can deliver a coordinated response to always aware of the risks that are present wildfire. The remaining 50 percent of or the mitigation actions to reduce it. these funds provide financial assistance to administer and implement wildfire hazard This program is intended to reduce fuel mitigation activities. Mitigation activities loadings around CARs by prescribed fall within the three categories of: burning, creation of fuel breaks, mechanical mulching and educating the public on Fire prevention and education the effectiveness of these treatments. It addresses and reduces hazardous fuels Community fire protection planning threatening critical infrastructure identified Wildfire hazard reduction treatments in the CWPPs prepared by various planning and development districts across the state. The goal of the NFP-SFA Program This program will also increase public in Mississippi is to protect the state’s awareness on wildfire prevention and WUIs. communities and timberland from significant loss of economic, ecological, Education geared to target audiences or aesthetic value due to wildfire and to on how to increase homeowner and reduce the threat to communities from the community safety through the application of impacts of wildland fire. The emphasis is Firewise principals and wildfire prevention on improving fire prevention, community strategies is a major component. MFC hosts wildfire planning, and reducing wildfire risk a variety of events in various locations through hazard reduction treatments. to showcase WUI hazard mitigation options and wildfire prevention strategies. Justification: Threat of wildfire damage will be reduced due to increased wildland firefighting Mississippi’s five-year average wildfire training provided to select VFDs. occurrence is approximately 3,200 wildfires with 56,000 acres lost. Volunteer Scope of Work: Fire departments (VFDs) also suppress many wildland grass and brush fires. The Hazardous Fuel Reduction majority of the state’s population and zz To reduce fuel loadings by prescribed homes are outside of major metropolitan burning 4500 – 5500 acres. Weather areas, large towns or cities. Most are still conditions, smoke management issues, inrural areas, small towns or communities fire occurrence and personnel availability or developments. These are areas could restrict the amount of burning where the MFC and rural VFDs have days, adversely affecting the amount fire suppression responsibilities. of burning that can be carried out. The areas in which wildland fires occur zz To establish permanent firebreaks in in Mississippi are, like the rest of the areas of wildland urban interface and country, suffering from a heavy buildup areas to restrictive for prescribed burning. zz To contract with available vendors 112 to perform mechanical mulching in by using mass media outlets. those areas that is to hazardous zz Support the above events with Firewise to perform prescribed burns. and wildfire prevention promotional items zz To promote and educate the public to be distributed at the above events. on the benefits of reducing fuel zz Update the Teacher’s Wildfire loading around communities. Prevention DVD correlation documents, zz Replace the Hazard Mitigation purchase the updated Teacher’s Technicians truck, ATV and other Wildfire Prevention DVDs and fund equipment. This vehicle has close the Teacher’s Wildfire Prevention to 200,000 miles and the ATV is CD ROM on-line conversion. 5 years old and showing signs of zz Translate the MFC Firewise wear. This equipment is strictly Handbook into Spanish. used on Hazard Mitigation projects zz Convert the Living on the Edge/ and wildfire suppression. How to Have a Firewise Home formats to full screen option. Current timeline: CWPP Fuel Reduction Projects Select sites and secure permission - Aug. 2010 – Oct. 2010 MFC has contracted with the Mississippi Association of Planning and Development Map sites and prepare burning Districts (MAPDD) to prepare CWPPs for plans - Sept. 2010 – Nov. 2010 high fire occurrence counties in Mississippi. Conduct burns and construct The County Risk Assessment section firebreaks - Dec. 2010 – Sept. 2011 identifies critical infrastructure in each county and assigned a hazard rating of Purchase equipment and promotional High, Medium-high, Medium and Low. items - Oct. 2010 – Aug. 2011 The MFC plans to identify critical Wildfire Prevention/WUI targets as rated by the following priority (including Firewise) level identified in the CWPPs: zz Recruit Firewise Community USA (FC/ Priority 1 – Hazard Risk Rating of High USA) communities. Contract with a qualified vendor(s) to facilitate the Priority 2 – Hazard Risk Rating FC/USA program in the existing FC/ of Medium – High USA communities and recruit FC/USA Priority 3 – Hazard Risk Rating of Medium communities in selected target counties. This process will be facilitated by the MFC will develop a challenge grant MFC Firewise Coordinator. Provide package, for counties with a CWPP, to sub-grants for FC/USA fuel mitigation apply for funding for fuel reduction projects equipment and annual meetings. identified in their CWPP. The MFC and/ zz Maintain the RC&D Council partnership or county officials will conduct a site to recruit and coordinate the Living on visit to determine needs based on the the Edge, How to Have a Firewise Home Hazard Risk Rating and determine what and Firewise Awareness Field Days type of fuel reduction is needed. The meetings in selected target counties. fuel reduction options are as follows: zz Promote Firewise and wildfire z prevention by attending and exhibiting z WUI Fire Breaks z at regional, state and local meetings. z Mechanical Mulching/Fuel Reduction z zz Promote Firewise and wildfire prevention z Prescribed Burning zz Herbicide Vegetation Control 113 MFC will also work with local officials CWPP Fuel Reduction Projects to determine the most appropriate fuel reduction method or combination of methods MFC will select high risk, medium high that best fit the site. In addition, the MFC risk, and medium risk critical infrastructure will help increase wildland firefighting targets for fuel reduction treatments that capacity by using county fire coordinators have been identified in the CWPP’s and will to implement a wildland firefighting training conduct site evaluations to determine needs program for selected VFDs using the with County Fire Coordinators. The county online training program Fire in the Field. will submit a project proposal and budget to MFC. Challenge grants will be evaluated Current timeline: and awarded. The MFC will review the VFDs that have received wildland personal Select high risk, medium high risk, protection gear funded by the Volunteer and medium risk critical infrastructure Fire Assistance (VFA) and NFP-VFA grants. targets for fuel reduction treatments Wildland firefighting training using the online that have been identified in the CWPPs Fire in the Field program will be conducted -May 2010 – September 2011 by county fire coordinators according to Implement projects with contract and/or program guidelines. Hazard Mitigation funds county vendors May 2010 – September 2011 will not be used for Fire in the Field training. Identify VFDs to participate in the Fire Firewise and Wildfire Prevention in the Field on-line training program, zz Establish a personal service establish training guidelines and contract for FCUSA program. procedures with respective county fire zz Continue partnership with coordinators, and implement training RC&D Councils. program -May 2010 – September 2011 zz Register for and attend regional, One Message, Many Voices state & local meetings. zz Work with media outlets for radio, The MFC also proposes to adopt the TV, Billboards and appropriate goals and objectives of the campaign: media messages. One Message, Many Voices. zz Purchase promotional materials. Provide Firewise sub-grants to Methodology: entities pursuing FCUSA status. Hazardous Fuel Reduction One Message, Many Voices zz Select those sites meeting criteria Apply the strategies of the campaign for the number of homes protected One Message, Many Voices and secure permission to burn or construct firebreaks. Location: Statewide zz Prepare burning plans or map out firebreak locations. National Fire Plan, State Fire zz Purchase vehicle and ATV Assistance Program Preparedness z z Conduct burns or construct firebreaks. The National Fire Plan, State Fire Assistance z z Acquire supplies and materials (NFP-SFA) Program for Preparedness to promote the Hazard is also a component of the CFPP and Mitigation Grant Program. has the NFP same goal as state above. Funds are distributed to state foresters based on recognition of the minimum need for all states to maintain and enhance 114 coordination and communication with zz To continue upgrading MFC firefighting federal agencies. Fifty percent of these equipment this includes Type 6 engines, funds are to provide financial assistance; tractor/plow units, transportation vehicles technical training and equipment to ensure and tools. This entails replacement Federal, State and local fire agencies and maintenance supplies. can deliver a coordinated response zz To ensure accuracy of data from the to wildfire. The remaining 50 percent MFC’s RAWS network, a maintenance of these funds are to provide financial contract will be continued with the assistance to administer and implement contractor designated to handle that task. wildfire hazard mitigation activities. zz Maintain the agency’s aerial fire detection program. This includes Justification: maintenance on aircraft, fuel and According to the SWRA there are 1755 contracting for pilot service. communities at risk (CAR) to wildland fire. zz Updgrade equipment and train the In order to perform these duties effectively MFC’s Wildland Fire Investigators. and safely replacement of equipment, These investigators are a major maintenance of equipment, replacing of fire prevention tool for the MFC. personal protection equipment (PPEs) If funding is not sufficient to address and other upgrades are needed. all of the projects above, priorities Scope of Work: will be set based on the most pressing needs of the agency. Grant funds enable MFC to increase its effectiveness and safety when Current timeline responding to wildland fires around the zz Identify equipment needed state. Below are lists of objectives that and begin purchase process will be completed to meet this goal. - Sept. 2010 – Jan. 2011. zz Continue needed upgrades of the zz Determine needs, acquire equipment at dispatch offices and personnel sizes and place order the replacement of the radios, Sept. 2010 – Nov. 2010. communication system equipment and zz Identify equipment needed and begin accessory items needed to program, purchase process Jan. 2011 – April 2011. maintain and enhance the use or zz Enter into a new maintenance agreement capability of the system. If needed with designated contractor March 2011. changes, upgrades and additional zz Identify equipment needs and features will be incorporated into training and begin process the software utilized for dispatch, Sept. 2010 – June 2011. reporting, mapping or analysis of Methodology: fire and/or weather data.Along with this is upgrading and continued Since wildland fires occur in all parts of the development of the MFC’s fire spatial state, grant funds will be used to enhance information management system. the capabilities of wildland firefighters by zz There is also a need for additional purchasing equipment and supplies and PPEs. As needed, Nomex clothing, maintaining existing equipment to meet fire shelters, neck shrouds, hardhats, the MFC’s statutory responsibilities. boots, gloves and items such as Location: packs to carry the gear or other Statewide accessory items will be acquired.

115 Volunteer Fire Assistance Program Justification:

The Volunteer Fire Assistance Program Grant funding enables local Volunteer Fire (VFA), formerly known as the Rural Departments to increase their capability Community Fire Protection (RCFP) to suppress woods and grass fires, which Program, can provide federal financial, will offer better protection to homeowners technical, and other assistance to State in the state. An additional benefit of this Foresters and other appropriate officials to program is to help departments provide organize, train and equip fire departments a level of protection that could result in in rural areas and rural communities to lower ISO ratings which could also result suppress fires. A rural community is defined in more affordable fire insurance rates for as having 10,000 or less population. This homeowners. Through the Federal Excess 10,000 population limit for participation in Personal Property (FEPP) program, MFC the VFA Program facilitates distribution is acquiring trucks in which the VFDs of available VFA funding to needy fire fabricates into brush trucks. These trucks departments. Mississippi distributes help support the agency in wildland fire available VFA funding through a competitive suppression. This affords the VFD a grant process. VFA also funds National funding source to purchase the needed Fire Plan (NFP) development. equipment to continue fabricating these trucks into brush trucks. It also allows VFDs VFA Program is a component of the CFPP. to purchase PPE, communication and Funds provide financial assistance, technical other needed equipment and to provide training and equipment to ensure federal, firefighter training for wildland fires. state and local fire agencies can deliver a coordinated response to wildfire. The Scope of Work: VFA Program is aimed at assisting rural communities with populations of 10,000 or Funds are awarded to approved VFDs less to establish new fire departments and through a sub-granting process. Funds to upgrade fire suppression capabilities up to $3,000 are made available for PPE, of existing departments. VFA funding is training, communications and firefighting awarded through the state foresters almost equipment that will improve fire protection entirely to volunteer fire departments in rural areas. Depending on the number of in rural areas and communities. These applicants, VFDs in areas that had higher departments are often the first line of fire occurrence, significantly larger fires, and defense in meeting expanded protection more damaging fires or have other justified needs for WUI fires and emergencies. needs may qualify for up to 25 percent in additional funds. With matching funds The goal of the VFA Program in being a concern for the VFDs, MFC will use Mississippi is to provide technical and/ the SFA overmatch as matching for this or financial assistance to rural volunteer grant, if sufficient state funds are available. fire departments to establish or enhance If sufficient funds are not available, the their fire protection services to promote departments will be responsible for the improvements in the capability and match. These funds will currently allow effectiveness of more than 750 rural assistance to approximately 31 departments. Volunteer Fire Departments (VFDs). VFDs provide fire protection and protect Due to reduced staffing and budgets, lives and other rural investments in more it will be necessary to assess 20 than 1750 towns, communities and large percent of funding for overhead developments that are high risk from wildfire. and administrative costs.

116 Current Timeline: National Fire Plan, Volunteer Fire Assistance Program zz Advertise program and accept applications June, 2010 and July, 2010 The NFP-VFA Program is also directed at zz Review, prioritize and approve assisting rural communities with populations applications. Notify approved applicants. of 10,000 or less to establish new fire July, 2010 and August, 2010 departments and to upgrade fire suppression zz Receive and review invoices, canceled capabilities of existing departments and is checks, etc. for payment of funds to awarded through the state foresters almost VFD’s. August, 2010 – May, 2011 entirely to volunteer fire departments in rural zz Reallocate unused funds. Complete areas and communities. The goal of the project records. Report accomplishments National Fire Plan, Volunteer Fire Assistance to USFS June, 2011 – September, 2011 Program in Mississippi is to provide technical and/or financial assistance to rural Methodology: volunteer fire departments to establish or The program targets VFDs in areas of enhance their fire protection services. the state impacted by high fire numbers, Justification: loss of homes or that provide protection in areas that are in the vicinity of high This grant will enable local VFDs to risk communities in the WUI as identified increase their capability to suppress woods in the SWRA. Grant funds provide and grass fires, which will provide better technical and financial assistance protection to homeowners in the state. to rural communities to establish or Scope of Work: enhance their fire protection services. Location: Statewide Funds will be awarded to the VFDs through a sub-granting process. Funds up to Accomplishment Reporting: $3,000 will be made available for PPE, Accomplishments should to show training, communications and firefighting measurable results and the cost/benefit or equipment that will improve fire protection value added to communities and resources in rural areas. Depending on the number involved and should include number of of applicants, departments in areas that departments assisted, estimates on the had higher fire occurrence, significantly number of firefighters and other people who larger fires, and more damaging fires or benefited from the project. Accomplishments have other justified needs may qualify for should also include other benefits such up to 25 percent in additional funds. as increased safety from training, PPE, With matching funds being a concern for increased water capability handling, etc. the VFDs, MFC will use the SFA 2010 MFC is also responsible for updating all state overmatch as matching for this grant, items included in the NFPORS database, if sufficient state funds are available. If Community Assistance module by October sufficient funds are not available, the 31 of each year. The region’s Cooperative departments will be responsible for the Fire Program Manager is available to match. These funds will allow assistance assist in these reporting requirements. to approximately 35 departments. Accomplishment Reports will be due Due to reduced staffing and budgets, on annual basis for the period ending it will be necessary to assess 20 September 30, of each year, and are percent of funding for overhead due no later than December 31. and administrative costs.

117 Current Timeline: Community Fire Protection – Wildland Fire and Advertise program and accept Hazardous Fuels (WFHF) applications June, 2010 and July, 2010. Community Fire Protection (CFP) funds, Review, prioritize and approve formerly known as Stevens funds, are applications. Notify approved applicants. National Forest System, wildland fire and July, 2010 and August, 2010 hazardous fuels (WFHF) funds that are Receive and review invoices, canceled distributed to states by a competitive grant checks, etc. for payment of funds to process. Applications are received by VFD’s. August, 2010 – May, 2011 the Cooperative Fire Manager through the Southern Group of State Foresters Reallocate unused funds. Complete (SGSF) Competitive Grant Selection project records. Report accomplishments Team to address fuels treatment activities to USFS June, 2011 – September, 2011 adjacent to National Forest lands. The Methodology: The program targets activities are coordinated with the local VFDs in areas of the state impacted by forest and carried out to compliment the high fire numbers, loss of homes or that fuels treatment efforts of the forest. No provide protection in areas that are in match is required for this funding. the vicinity of high risk communities in the WUI as identified in the SWRA. The The CFP Program is authorized by the grant will provide technical and financial National Forest Management Act (16 USC assistance to rural communities to establish 1600 et seq). The goal of the Community or enhance their fire protection services. Fire Protection Program in Mississippi is to protect the state’s communities and Location: Statewide timberland adjacent to National Forest Accomplishment Reporting: lands from significant loss of economic, ecological, or aesthetic value due to wildfire States will be responsible for reporting and to reduce the threat to communities accomplishments under the VFAP. from the impacts of wildland fire. The Accomplishments need to show measurable emphasis is on reducing wildfire risk results and the cost/benefit or value added through hazard reduction treatments that to communities and resources involved and supplement the hazardous fuel reduction should number of departments assisted, program on the National Forest. estimates on the number of firefighters and other people who benefited from the Justification: project. Accomplishments should also While the National Forests are able to describe other benefits such as increased maintain a periodic burning schedule for safety from training, PPE, increased the lands under their control, there is a water capability handling, etc. MFC is great deal of state and private nonindustrial responsible for updating all items included holdings inside the proclamation boundaries in the NFPORS database, Community and adjacent to the boundary that are Assistance module by October 31 of burned only infrequently or rarely. These each year. The region’s Cooperative Fire areas suffer from heavy buildup of forest Program Manager is available to assist fuels. State and private holdings experience in these reporting requirements. Hazard many more fires than National Forest Mitigation Program, Cooperative Fire lands. Fires on state and private lands Protection Program (SFA) and FEPP in or adjacent to the National Forest reviews by the Forest Service will be could easily spread onto federal lands. coordinated and scheduled with the states. 118 Scope of Work: forests and trees on state and private lands from insects, disease causing agents, and This project uses prescribed fire invasive plants. The CFHP is authorized to reduce fuel loads and firebreak by the CFAA. States participation is construction to contain the spread voluntary and requires annual application of wildfires on approximately 5,000 for funding through the consolidated grant acres of state and private nonindustrial process. The USFS qualifies states to lands within and near the proclamation participate if they have a program that: boundary of the National Forests. zz has at least one full-time professional When practical and feasible, MFC entomologist or pathologist on district personnel will plan burns staff (the Regional Forester may on sites within or adjacent to burns waive this requirement if the state planned by Forest Service personnel. If can justify the waiver in writing) circumstances permit burns on adjacent zz provides state and private land properties may be conducted jointly. managers with technical assistance; to Methodology: monitor the effects of insects, disease causing agents, and invasive plants zz Contact USFS on burns planned for 2011. zz evaluates the need for protecting forest zz Contact landowners to secure and tree resources from insects, disease permission to burn or construct causing agents, and invasive plants, and firebreaks on their property. zz provides an annual report to zz Prepare burning plans and Regional Forester on the effects map out firebreaks. of forest insects and disease zz Coordinate with USFS on causing agents within the state burning schedule. zz Conduct burns and construct firebreaks. In 2007 the Washington Office in consultation with the National Association Location: of State Foresters (NASF) implemented a revised allocation formula for funding Areas surrounding Bienville, DeSoto, the CFHP. The formula is based in part Holly Springs, Homochitto and on the number of forested acres within Tombigbee Ranger Districts the state. A full allocation level of funding Accomplishment Reporting: has annually been maintained under the new allocation protocol ever since. The National Forest will be responsible Cooperative Pest Prevention for data input into the FACTS database. and Suppression Forest Fire Management Officers will be the local contact as projects The Cooperative Forestry Assistance are undertaken and completed since Act of 1978, Section 8(b)(3), describes this is a multi-year funding grant. the authority for Forest Health Protection (FHP) to “plan, organize, direct and perform measures to prevent, retard, control or A.1.2 Forest Health suppress incipient, potential, threatening, or emergency insect infestations and The Cooperative Forest Health Protection disease conditions affecting trees.” These (CFHP) program provides federal financial activities are performed in cooperation with and technical assistance to states to state regulatory officials and state foresters facilitate their survey and monitoring of on state & private lands. The objective of forest conditions and for the protection of pest prevention and suppression projects 119 is to reduce the damage to forest and projects on state and private lands is tree resources from outbreaks of insect allocated from the Cooperative Lands and disease-causing pests. In recent Forest Health Management budget line years emphasis has broadened to include item. In Mississippi, the southern pine management and control of established beetle (SPB) and non-native invasive non-native invasive forest and tree pests. species (including plants) have been and Pest prevention and suppression priorities will continue to be the focus of cooperative are established by the Washington Office prevention and suppression projects. and reflect national issues as well as input SPB Prevention and from the Regions. The current priorities are: Restoration Program 1. Protect threatened and endangered species habitat This program is a cornerstone component 2. Eradicate new exotic insect of cooperative efforts to institute a and disease infestations comprehensive and integrated approach to 3. Protect developed recreation managing SPB in Mississippi and elsewhere sites or high valued trees throughout the South. Since its inception 4. Protect adjacent private land in 2003, this program has enabled a long 5. Protect native vegetation (forests & trees) overdue shift in the management of this most notable pest, from predominantly reactive The overall objective is to provide a (direct suppression during outbreaks) to a comprehensive program of pest prevention proactive approach (prevention). The basic and suppression management, including tenants of the program support development developing effective organizational and utilization of straight forward and time- structures, contracting assistance, tested techniques proven to be effective compliance with the National Environmental at preventing or mitigating the impacts of Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species SPB, such as: landowner education, hazard Act (ESA), and relevant Executive Orders, mapping, planting appropriate species on aircraft calibration, and pilot testing of the right site, prescribed burning, and most new methods or materials (technology notably thinning of overly dense stands. development) among other activities. Such treatments are widely recognized Some examples of cooperative projects for delivering added forest health benefits, involving or of interest to Mississippi are: such as improving fire condition class, zz Survey Assistance enhancing wildlife habitat, and increasing Sudden oak death (SOD) surveys in recreational opportunities. These same forested areas strategies promoting forest health also may Early Detection & Rapid Response potentially provide protection of pine forests (EDRR) surveys for non- against the threat posed by the non-native native bark beetles invasive Sirex woodwasp, that is established Sirex surveys and spreading in the northeastern U.S. Redbay ambrosia beetle and Canada. In collaboration with MSU, a & laurel wilt surveys comprehensive SPB prevention program zz Treatment evaluation for the entire state was initiated in 2006 Development and evaluation of and has annually progressed to providing invasive plant control methods cost-share assistance to landowners for zz Technology Development eligible thinning practices on a state- Fungicide injection wide basis. Since 2006 the program has development for laurel wilt delivered more than 84 education programs Funding for pest prevention and suppression for more than 3,000 landowners, foresters 120 and loggers. In addition, more than 140 Forest Health Monitoring landowners owning more than 7,000 acres Program (FHM) have benefited from the cost share incentive thinning program over the last two years. The FHM is a national program designed to determine the status, changes, and trends Invasive Species Management in indicators of forest condition on an annual basis. FHM program uses data from ground The goal of the USFS invasive species plots and surveys, aerial surveys, and other program is to reduce, minimize, or biotic and abiotic data sources and develops eliminate the potential for introduction, analytical approaches to address forest establishment, spread, and impact of health issues that affect the sustainability of invasive species across all landscapes forest ecosystems. FHM covers all forested and ownerships. The National Strategy lands through a partnership involving encompasses four program elements. USFS, state foresters and other state and zz Prevention federal agencies and academic groups. z z Early detection and rapid response Major FHM activities include: zz Control and Management zz Rehabilitation and restoration zz Detection Monitoring – nationally standardized aerial and ground Cooperative Non-Native Invasive surveys to evaluate status and change Plant (NNIP) Program in condition of forest ecosystems. The current infestations and growing threat zz Evaluation Monitoring - projects to of non-native invasive (NNI) species can determine extent, severity, and causes displace diversity and habitats, disrupt of undesirable changes in forest health vital ecosystem functions, and degrade identified through Detection Monitoring. productivity and recreational benefits. NNI zz Intensive Site Monitoring – to enhance plants have increased in their range and understanding of cause-effect severity, while others await entry through relationships by linking Detection global commerce. This program was initiated Monitoring to ecosystem process in 2003 with development of Strategy for studies and assess specific issues, such NNI Plant Management and the first year as calcium depletion and carbon of federal funding support. The focus sequestration, at multiple spatial scales. of the program is on early detection and zz Research on Monitoring Techniques rapid response, prevention, control and – to develop or improve indicators, management, rehabilitation and restoration, monitoring systems, and analytical and information and education. Mississippi techniques, such as, urban and has partnered with FHP and others to riparian forest health monitoring, address all of the above concerns and early detection of invasive species, aspects of the NNIP problem in the state, multivariate analyses of forest health including establishment of a state-wide indicators, and spatial scan statistics. Cooperative Weed Management Area zz Analysis and Reporting - synthesis of (CWMA). The CWMA plays a significant information from various data sources role in supporting and coordinating efforts within and external to the Forest Service against non-native invasive on behalf of to produce issue-driven reports on the entire state, including forestlands. status and change in forest health at national, regional and state levels.

121 zz Justification: with other state agencies such as the Mississippi Department of The goal of the CFH Program and all of Agriculture and Commerce (MDAC), it’s various components in Mississippi Division of Plant Industry. Funding is to protect the state’s forest and tree is available for public education. resources from significant loss of economic, zz Update Forest Health links ecological, or social value due to insects, on the MFC’s website diseases, non-native invasive plants, other stressors, and unknown causes, Detection and to restore and enhance healthy z forest conditions throughout the state. z Conduct two Southern Pine Beetle flights, Spring and Fall, covering the entire State Scope of Work/Methodology: of Mississippi, with the exception of the Delta. Additional objectives include 100 Prevention percent ground check of all SPB activity zz Administer the comprehensive statewide during low occurrence times and more SPB prevention program for Mississippi detection flights scheduled as necessary zz Provide technical assistance to local during times of high occurrence. service foresters in identification of zz Conduct additional aerial detection flights unknown insects or diseases found over areas of forestland that may have in the forest or urban environment. been damaged by other factors than zz Participate in North Mississippi SPB. Damages may include tornados, Kudzu Coalition meetings discussing floods, wildfires and hurricanes. strategies for combating Kudzu. zz Map detected damages using the zz Present forest health programs upon digital Sketchmapper and record using request to local County Forestry the FHM aerial survey standards. Association (CFA) meetings, civic zz Deploy 46 SPB traps across all MFC groups and garden clubs. districts for one month. The trapping zz Prepare and present new releases will begin in April in south Mississippi. to television stations or newspapers Traps will be checked weekly and all as needed in reporting local or area- insects found will be collected and sent wide insect or disease problems. to the staff entomologist for evaluation. zz Participate in the Mississippi Cooperative zz Newly detected cogongrass Weed Management Area meetings to infestations will be identified and discuss and keep informed on new georeferenced throughout the state. and existing forest health issues. This effort on non-federal lands that zz Post forest health articles on the the MFC manages will increase with MFC web site for use by the general the goal of elimination of this pest public along with MFC employees. on non-federal lands in the state. zz Attend the annual National Forest Health zz Continue contacts with professionals Monitoring Program Managers Meeting in entomology, pathology and other zz Educate landowners on cogongrass related fields to keep abreast of effects on our state through several recent developments in applied avenues such as radio spots, research and pest conditions in newspaper articles, CFA meetings, other areas of the South. promotional items and posters Evaluation zz Increase public awareness on the dangers of the Emerald Ash Borer zz Evaluate the number of insects found in (EAB) to the state through cooperation SPB trapping across the state and turn

122 in report to USFS to be incorporated zz Provide professional input and advice into the National SPB prediction model. to the FHM. As a consortium of zz Any ground checked SPB spots will be state and federal pest management evaluated and losses determined and specialists, this input is necessary to reported using the FHM standards. maintain a viable program at the state, regional and federal level. This input Control includes attendance at FHM meetings, zz Implement control and eradication keeping abreast of FHM developments spraying of NNIs on 300 acres and making recommendations of non - federal lands. that will benefit the program. zz Purchase and maintenance of existing zz Special funding has been made equipment to increase the agency’s available for Redbay Ambrosia Beetle ability to combat invasive species. and Laurel wilt disease confirmation zz Continue cogongrass and other non- in MS, along with identification of native invasive eradication and control the means of introduction, extent efforts on the Kurtz State Forest. and severity of the Laurel Wilt zz Partner with a district RC&D council disease in Mississippi, southwest in funding an invasive species Alabama and southeast Louisiana. eradication project for several Location: Statewide target counties in Mississippi. Accomplishment Reporting: Technical Assistance Forest Health Protection (FHP) requires z z Provide technical assistance an annual report on Mississippi’s and /or information on urban and accomplishments for the CFHP and FHM rural forest pests to Mississippi programs. The report is due to the Regional landowners upon request. Office on November 1 and it should be zz Provide technical assistance on SPB coordinated with the FHP Field Office. It suppression projects as needed. should respond to each of the tasks listed zz Provide technical assistance in the narrative and it should also document to landowners and the general any other associated accomplishments. public on controlling forest Mississippi is also required to report pests on a regular basis. accomplishments for any insect or disease prevention or suppression projects funded. zz Utilizing our contract entomologist, These reports are separate from the CFHP/ any insect and/or disease samples FHM accomplishment report and should submitted by state forestry personnel include data related to the project activities. or private individuals will be identified. Forest Health Monitoring A.1.3 Forest Legacy Program zz As part of the Annual Insect and Disease Conditions Reporting process, the The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) MFC will submit to the FHP Field Office was created to identify and protect survey maps/reports in accordance with environmentally sensitive forest lands standardized survey procedures as threatened with conversion to non-forest agreed to by the joint USFS/state agency uses. FLP is a USFS program in partnership FHM survey standards committee. with Mississippi that supports local efforts zz Cooperate with the USFS in EDRR to protect environmentally sensitive, state or regional projects. privately owned forest lands threatened by 123 conversion to non-forest use through land public purposes identified by participating acquisition and conservation easements. states and agreed to by the landowner. Participation in Forest Legacy is limited Development of the nation’s forested to private forest landowners. To qualify, areas poses an increasing threat to landowners are required to prepare a maintaining the integrity of our country’s multiple resource management plan as part valuable forest lands. Intact forest lands of the conservation easement acquisition. supply timber products, wildlife habitat, soil and watershed protection, aesthetics, Federal funds may fund up to 75 percent and recreational opportunities. However, of project costs, with at least 25 percent as these areas are fragmented and coming from private, state or local sources. disappear, so do the benefits they provide. In addition to gains associated with the While local governments commonly sale or donation of property rights, many guide development away from the most landowners also benefit from reduced taxes sensitive areas through traditional land associated with limits placed on land use. use controls (like zoning and performance The MFC has identified three Forest standards), sometimes these measures are Legacy Areas (FLAs) based on input from not sufficient to fully protect the forested the public and under the guidance of the component of our natural resource base. State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Designed to encourage the protection of Committee (FSCC) in the FLP Assessment privately owned forest lands, FLP is an of Need (AON), an active five year plan entirely voluntary program. To maximize that was approved in 2007. Funds are the public benefits it achieves, the now available to MFC to coordinate the program focuses on the acquisition of purchase of the forestland outright or the partial interests in privately-owned forest purchase of development rights (through lands. FLP helps the states develop and conservation easements) on approved carry out their forest conservation plans. FLP tracts nominated in Mississippi. It encourages and supports acquisition of Lands purchased in fee title with funds conservation easements, legally binding will remain in ownership by a local, state agreements transferring a negotiated or federal agency for conservation. The set of property rights from one party to AON identifies areas of Mississippi where another, without removing the property from important natural forest communities private ownership. Most FLP conservation exist on private lands that are potentially easements restrict development, require threatened by conversion from urban and sustainable forestry practices, and protect suburban growth or other threats. The AON other values. Forest lands that contain recommends these areas of the state be important fish and wildlife habitats, designated as Forest Legacy Areas so scenic, cultural, recreational and/or water that willing landowners may nominate their resources or other ecological values and property as a possible Forest Legacy tract. that will support continuation of traditional The three FLAs in Mississippi are called the forest uses receive priority in FLP. Southeast, Central and Northeast Forest FLP complements other private, federal Legacy Areas. Applicants must own property and state forestland conservation programs that falls into one of these three areas to be focusing on conservation in two ways. considered for the program, and the forested First, FLP directly supports property tracts must meet the state and national acquisition. Additionally, FLP supports program objectives. The following is a map efforts to acquire donated conservation of each FLA and a list of the conservation easements. FLP funded acquisitions serve priorities, important public lands and threats

124 to forests in each area. FLAs were identified Other Conservation Values and based on many factors including the habitat Priorities in the Northeast FLA: diversity, types of natural forest communities Tombigbee drainage, Northeast Hills/ in each area, significant past and projected Tennessee River drainage, Buttahatchie increases in human population and recent River, Tennessee-Tombigbee River, conversion of forestland to other uses. Natchez Trace corridor, scenic streams, riparian corridors and forested wetlands along ecoregional priority river/ stream reaches, areas adjacent to public lands managed for conservation and mitigation banks, scenic roads, existing private conservation lands, 16th Section lands and military installations. Important Public Lands in the Northeast FLA: Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway, Divide Section WMA, John Bell Williams WMA, Canal Section WMA, Black Prairie WMA, J.P. Coleman State Park, Tishomingo State Park, Tombigbee State Park, Lake Lowndes State Park, Columbus AFB, Sixteenth Section Lands, Lake Monroe, Elvis Presley Lake, Lake Lamar Bruce. Threats to natural forest communities in the Northeast FLA: Urban sprawl, fragmentation/ subparcelization, invasive Northeast MS Forest Legacy species, second home/ Area includes parts of 6 Counties vacation home development, conversion of - Clay, Itawamba, Lee, Lowndes, natural stands to pine plantations, channel Monroe, Tishomingo. modification, sand and gravel mining. Important Forest Types in the Northeast FLA: Bottomland hardwoods, lower slope/high terrace hardwood forests, dry hardwood forests, dry to mesic hardwood forests. 125 Important Public Lands in the Central FLA: Natchez Trace National Park, Ross Barnett Reservoir, Pearl River WMA, Copiah County WMA, LeFleurs Bluff State Park, Sixteenth Section lands, Simpson County Lake, Calling Panther Lake. Threats to natural forest communities in the Central FLA: Metro area sprawl, significant suburban and exurban development, fragmentation/ subparcelization, flood control/channel modification, road construction, sand and gravel mining. Southeast Forest Legacy Area includes all of 13 counties - Forrest, Central MS Forest Legacy Area George, Greene, includes parts of 5 counties - Copiah, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Hinds, Madison, Rankin, and Simpson. Marion, Pearl River, Perry, Stone, Wayne. Important Forest Types in the Important Forest Types in the Central FLA: Bottomland hardwoods, Southeast FLA: Wet pine savannas/ bald- cypress/gum swamp forests, lower slash pine flatwoods, mesic longleaf slope/high terrace hardwood forests. pine forests, dry longleaf pine forests, Other Conservation Values and bottomland hardwoods, small stream Priorities in the Central FLA: Big swamp forests, maritime forests, beech/ Black River drainage, Upper and Lower magnolia forests, pine seeps. Pearl River drainage, Ross Barnett Values and Priorities for Southeast Reservoir, Natchez Trace corridor, riparian FLA: Pascagoula River drainage, Lower corridors and forested wetlands along Pearl River drainage, Black Creek, Leaf ecoregional priority river/stream reaches, River, Okatoma Creek, Ragland hills, areas adjacent to public lands managed for Leaf River, scenic streams, fallout habitat conservation and mitigation, existing private for neotropical migratory songbirds, conservation lands and 16th Section lands. 126 State Park, Buccaneer State Park, Shepard State Park, Sixteenth Section Lands. Threats to natural forest communities the Southeast FLA: Significant urban and exurban sprawl from coastal development and Hattiesburg, recent population shifts within the region generated by Hurricane Katrina, significant recent timber losses from Hurricane Katrina, second home/ vacation home development, decades of fire exclusion, sale of industry lands to individuals, invasive species, road construction, conversion of natural stands to pine plantations and sand and gravel mining. Black bear, gopher tortoise, gopher frog, pitcher plant habitat, riparian corridors FLP is strictly voluntary. Landowners with an and forested wetlands along ecoregional interest in protecting and conserving their priority river/stream reaches, areas natural forest land may make application adjacent to public lands managed for to the MFC FLP Coordinator to have their conservation and mitigation banks, property considered for nomination. The existing private conservation lands, 16th application helps determine the extent of Section lands and military installations. threat to the forestland for land use change and establishes a rating procedure to ensure Important Public Lands in the that only the most environmentally important Southeast FLA: DeSoto National Forest, forests are considered. Applications will Chickasawhay Ranger District, Stennis be reviewed and ranked by MFC and then Space Center, Camp Shelby, Red Creek submitted to the USFS for consideration. WMA, Pascagoula River WMA, Wolf All tracts must have a Forest Stewardship River WMA, Leaf River WMA, Old River Plan to be considered and they must WMA, Little Biloxi WMA, Red Creek WMA, fall within a FLA. Tracts that meet the Ward Bayou WMA, Chickasawhay WMA, national and state guidelines have the best Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR, Grand Bay chance of being nominated and funded. NWR, Coastal Preserves, Paul B. Johnson 127 National Guidelines – Tracts shall have zz Maintain traditional forest uses, significant environmental values or shall be including hunting and fishing. threatened by present or future conversion to zz Sustain productive forests. non-forest use. National priority will be given zz Provide public recreation opportunities. to land that can be effectively protected and managed and that have important scenic The non-federal cost share of at least 25 or recreational values, riparian areas, fish percent must be documented and may and wildlife values, or other ecological consist of 1) the value of land, or interest in values. There are four national criteria land, dedicated to FLP that is not paid for by that will used to score and rank projects: the federal government; 2) nonfederal costs associated with program implementation; and 3) other non-federal costs associated with a grant or other agreement that meets Importance – What FLP purpose. Cost share can be contributed are the environmental, social by the landowner, other partners such as and economic benefits gained land trusts or other organizations, other state from protecting the tract? or local agencies or other project partners. Threatened -- What are threats to conversion? Federal funds from FLP may be used to Strategic – Does the property cover transaction costs including appraisals fit in a larger conservation plan, and appraisal review, land surveys, closing strategy or initiative by a government costs, baseline documentation reports, agency or organizations? Is it title work, purchase of title insurance, strategically linked to enhance conservation easement drafting or other already protected lands? real estate transaction expenses for fee Readiness – Is there local title land acquisition. Federal funds may support? Can the project be also be used to facilitate donations of completed? Is there a completed land or interests in lands to a qualified appraisal, easement conditions, donee, by paying expenses directly cost share commitment, signed related to the donation, including land option or purchase agreement, title surveys, easement drafting, title work search, forest stewardship plan? and establishing baseline information. For an outright donation of a conservation easement, program funds may not be State Guidelines – In addition to the used to pay for an appraisal. In the national criteria, to be eligible for inclusion, case of a partial donation, an appraisal tracts must be located in a Mississippi meeting federal standards is required to FLA, threatened by conversion, must be determine the value of the property. FLP owned by a willing seller and must also funds may be used for appraisals on a possess environmental values that can partial donation. Limited funding on the be protected and managed effectively. federal level and competition between Projects must also meet one or more 50 states actively participating in Forest of the Mississippi FLP objectives: Legacy focus the selection process on the zz Sustain native or rate and most unique forest properties that best unique forest communities. meet national criteria. Only a one or two zz Protect water quality. properties will likely be protected each year zz Protect forests from development along in Mississippi depending upon tract size, lakes, rivers and buffer protected lands. development value and landowner interest. zz Protect wildlife habitat. 128 Justification:

Priority for Forest Legacy acquisitions shall A.1.4 Forest Stewardship Program be given to lands that enhance federal Program Description and Purpose lands, federal, investments, or past federal assistance efforts; lands which can be The purpose of the Forest Stewardship effectively managed; lands which have Program (FSP) is to encourage the long- important scenic or recreational values, term stewardship of nonindustrial private riparian areas, timber, fish and wildlife values forestlands, by assisting the owners to more (including threatened and endangered actively manage their forest and related species), or other ecological values. resources. FSP provides assistance to Scope of Work: owners of forestland and other lands where good stewardship, including agroforestry MFC, with involvement of the FSCC, applications, will enhance and sustain the shall cooperatively review landowner long-term productivity of multiple forest applications and establish state acquisition resources. Special attention is given to priorities and consult with interested landowners in important forest resource landowners. They will submit proposals areas and those new to, or in the early to the USFS for consideriaton. stages of, managing their land in a way that embodies multi-resource stewardship MFC will enter nominations into the Forest principles. The program provides landowners Legacy Information System (FLIS) each with the professional planning and technical year. This information should be updated assistance they need to keep their land in a periodically to maintain an accurate productive and healthy condition. Planning description of each Legacy project in FLIS. assistance offered through the FSP may also Geographic Information System (GIS) provide landowners with enhanced access shapefiles of proposed FLP project tracts to other USDA conservation programs and match properties that closed during and/or forest certification programs. the fiscal year, will be submitted in FLIS. State Forest Stewardship Methodology: Coordinating Committees Each State Forester or equivalent A separate grant will be made to MFC for State official must establish a State projects, which are approved for FLP. MFC FSCC, administered by the State is responsible for implementation and Forester or designee thereof (16 monitoring of conservation easements at U.S.C. 2113(b)). The Committee least annually. Lands and interest in lands shall include, to the extent possible, will be held in perpetuity. Though FLP is individuals representing the following: included in this statewide Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource zz The Forest Service, Natural Resources Strategy, MFC proposes to continue Conservation Service (NRCS), Farm implementing the 2007-2012 AON and using Service Agency (FSA), and the it as the current management and guidance Cooperative Extension Service plan for this program. The first update of zz NRCS State Technical Committee the AON will be incorporated into the next zz Local Government update of the assessment and strategy. zz Soil and water conservation districts zz Consulting foresters Location: Three designated zz Environmental organizations FLAs in Mississippi

129 zz Forest products industry must meet, or be expanded or enhanced zz Forest landowners to meet the requirements of the FSP. zz Land trust organizations zz Conservation organizations Participation in the FSP is voluntary. To enter zz State fish and wildlife agency the program, landowners agree to manage zz Tribal representatives their property according to an approved zz Other relevant interests as Forest Stewardship Management Plan deemed appropriate (FSMP). Landowners also understand that they may be asked to participate in future The FSCC must be ongoing to address management outcome monitoring activities. stewardship planning and implementation concerns and overall program coordination, Award of FSP funds requires a non-federal and not convened on a temporary basis. 50 percent funding match, which may be The FSCC’s primary functions are: met through consolidation of proposals and matching funds across S&PF programs. zz To provide advice and recommendations to the State Forester concerning Justification: implementation of the FSP, and other Forest Stewardship funds are available associated landowner assistance for grants to states under the legislative and cost-share programs. authority of the Cooperative Forestry zz To provide assistance and Assistance Act of 1978 (as amended) recommendations concerning the and various appropriation acts. development, implementation, and updating of the statewide Rural Forestry Assistance establishes a assessment and resource strategy. cooperative program between USDA and states to provide technical information, State Foresters are encouraged to actively advice, and related assistance to private pursue partnerships with Committee and landowners and other entities within the non-committee agencies, organizations forest management community to encourage and institutions interested in forest conservation and management of non- resource management and conservation. federal forests. The FSP focuses specifically The statewide assessment and resource on nonindustrial private forestlands by strategy, as authorized in the 2008 Farm assisting owners of these lands to more Bill (sec. 8002), replaces the State Forest actively manage their forests for multiple Stewardship Plan and other planning uses and values based on a FSP and requirements under the Cooperative using available expertise and assistance. Forestry Assistance Act (CFAA). Scope of Work: For purposes of this program, nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) acreage includes lands Activities funded under this owned by any private individual, group, program may include: association, corporation, Indian tribe or z other private legal entity is eligible. It also z Preparing multiple-use Forest includes rural lands with existing tree cover, Stewardship plans for nonindustrial or suitable for growing trees. NIPFs that private landowners, z are managed under existing federal, state, z Assisting landowners to implement or private sector financial and technical forest management activities, assistance programs are eligible for including use of existing cost-share assistance under the FSP. Forest resource programs where appropriate, z management activities on such forestlands z Providing seedlings for reforestation and restoration activities, 130 zz Developing genetically-improved Regional FSP Performance tree seeds and seedlings, Measures: Grant funds are expected zz Educating landowners about forest to provide for accomplishment of the management practices and issues, following regional performance measures: zz Coordinating with partners to improve program delivery, including regularly Regional Performance Target convening a State Forest Stewardship Measure Coordinating Committee, Number of Forest 1,400 zz Providing recognition to exemplary Management or Practice Forest Stewardship landowners, Plans approved zz Training state and partner staffs on Acres of Forest 42,000 topics relevant to program delivery, Management or Practice zz Practicing sustainable forestry Plans approved on state-owned lands, and Number of landowners 80 zz Monitoring and reporting program recognized as Certified implementation and effectiveness. Forest Stewards Methodology and Program Targets: or equivalent Pounds of pine NA National FSP Performance seed produced Measures: Grant funds are expected to Pounds of hardwood NA provide for accomplishment of the following seed produced targets for national performance measures: Numbers of pine NA National Performance Target seedlings produced Measure Numbers of hardwood NA Number of landowners 15,000 seedlings produced provided with technical Acres of state-owned 45,000 assistance forest improved Number of landowners 10,000 participating in Other Standard Program Activities: educational programs MFC foresters will continue to prepare Acres of approved 175,000 quality multiple-use FSP for nonindustrial new or revised Forest private landowners in Mississippi during Stewardship plans the grant period each year. Several Acres from 3. that are 67,600 outreach activities and projects are in High Priority Areas planned and explained in further Number of approved 800 detail in the State Program Priorities new or revised Forest section. MFC will host State FSCC Stewardship plans meetings during the grant period too. Cumulative acres of current 250,000 Forest Stewardship plans being implemented within High Priority Areas (may be based on sample)

131 National Program Priorities: the functionality for analysis and reporting of national and regional performance Grant funds will be used to address standards. MFC will also develop a national program priorities through web-based Enterprise system of data the following projects, initiatives, entry. The goal is to spatially capture emphasis areas, or actions: all current Forest Stewardship plans in 1. Climate Change Mitigation order to monitor plan implementation. and Adaptation Regional Program Priorities:

Forest Stewardship plans will be developed Grant funds will be used to address to include information and/or practices, regional program priorities through where feasible and consistent to the the following projects, initiatives, landowner’s objectives that will mitigate emphasis areas, or actions: or adapt the adverse effects of planned practices that contribute to climate change. Integrating Rural Forestry Issues in Statewide Assessments and Strategies 2. Water Quality and Supply zz Wherever feasible, Stewardship Forest Stewardship plans will be funds will be utilized to increase or developed to include information and/ improve activities in high priority issue or practices, where feasible and areas as identified from the state consistent to the landowner’s objectives assessment and resulting strategies. that will address water quality and Monitoring Forest Stewardship supply concerns on the property. Plan Implementation zz Stewardship Plan monitoring was 3. Landscape-scale Forest implemented in FY09. MFC will Stewardship Planning monitor future FY plans according to national and regional standards Forest Stewardship plans will be and report plan implementation. developed to include information and/ Coordinate with NRCS on delivery or practices, where feasible and of Farm Bill forestry programs. consistent to the landowner’s objectives zz The MFC will participate in dialog that will address landscape-scale through Mississippi State Technical issue priority areas of the state. Committee and the Stewardship 4. Landowner Opportunities for Committee to coordinate of activities Participation in Biomass Energy Markets, with NRCS that will improve Certification, USDA Cost-share Programs, delivery of the 2008 Farm Bill. and Ecosystem Service Markets zz Review Outreach Performance Measures and Effectiveness Monitoring Forest Stewardship plans will be developed zz Appropriate state staff members will to include information and/or practices, engage with staffs from the Regional where feasible and consistent to the Office and other states to review existing landowner’s objectives that will contribute outreach performance measures to the development of practices associated and options for improving them. with the production of biomass for use by local energy facilities and markets. State Program Priorities: 5. Spatial Accomplishment Tracking Grant funds will be used to address State priorities through the following projects, MFC will continue to enhance and modify initiatives, emphasis areas, or actions: the SIMS data base application to improve 132 The MFC will continue to enhance and day provides hands-on experience for modify its SIMS Map and Plan Writer students as they learn about forests, applications to improve the functionality wildlife, habitats, safety, conservation, for analysis and reporting of national and and environmental stewardship. regional performance standards. MFC will also develop a web-based Enterprise system An array of promotional materials, media to streamline data entry and plan delivery. ads and activities will be produced to ensure the FSP is sufficiently promoted The MFC is looking at various ways to in Mississippi during this grant period. partner with and incorporate the expertise Location: of other resource professionals in the development of Forest Stewardship Plans Statewide, but with outreach focus in priority and with the promotion of the FSP. These areas as defined by this assessment. grant funds will used to develop a web- based Enterprise system. This system will Accomplishment Reporting: enable MFC foresters and other resource MFC will enter annual program professionals to create and generate quality accomplishments for national performance Forest Stewardship plans on MFC web site measures into PMAS (Performance and will enhance MFC’s ability to capture Management Accountability System) this data spatially for future reporting. and complete and submit annual The public outreach efforts for recognizing accomplishment reports using a and promoting the FSP and Certified format provided by the USFS. These Forest Stewards will be engaged by reports will link financial expenditures the MFC Public Outreach Department. with program accomplishments, Opportunities to partner with other and compare accomplishments with agencies and organizations such as targets provided in grant narratives. the County Forestry Associations and the Tree Farm Program to promote the FSP continue to be implemented. A.1.5 Urban and Community Forestry MFC will continue to support CFA forestry field days, workshops and other events The Urban and Community Forestry that promote Forest Stewardship. Assistance Program was authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of MFC will work with and support the 1978 (PL 95-313), Section 9, and amended Underserved Landowner Outreach by the 1990 Farm Bill (PL 101-624). The Program to provide displays and other program is intended to provide technical promotional items promoting efforts for the and financial assistance to state forestry underserved landowners of Mississippi. agencies for the purpose of encouraging The MFC will help sponsor three events states to provide technical and financial to promote the FSP - The Small Farmer’s assistance to local governments and Conference; the Joint Forestry and Smokey others to plan urban forestry programs, Night at the Mississippi Braves baseball and to plant, protect, improve urban forests game; and the Great Delta Bear Affair. MFC and associated natural resources. will continue to support and participate in Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) is a Youth Education Day during the Great a cooperative program of the USFS that Delta Bear Affair. This event is centered focuses on the stewardship of urban natural in the traditionally underserved lower resources. With 50 percent of Mississippi’s Mississippi Delta. This youth education 133 population in urban areas, there are strong All federally funded projects shall meet environmental, social, and economic the Congressional authority established cases to be made for the conservation in the Urban and Community Forestry of green spaces to guide growth and Assistance subtitle of the 1990 Farm Bill, revitalize urban areas and communities. and which accomplish the national UCF The goal of the UCF Assistance Program program goals, and specific objectives in Mississippi is to build local capacity identified in state UCF strategic plans. to actively manage urban forests to National U&CF program maximize their ability to clean air and water, goals include: conserve energy, reduce the impacts of urbanization, mitigate climate change and zz Minimize the impact of land use reduce the risks of catastrophic events. change and urbanization on forests. Justification: zz Minimize the risk and impact of catastrophic events. These programs are important to educate zz Protect and improve air and water quality. the population on the benefits of urban zz Mitigate climate change. forestry and to preserve, promote and zz Conserve energy. improve urban forest benefits. UCF projects enhance economic development Funds are provided on a 50:50 federal/ in communities and urban areas non-federal matching basis. This program and also provide environmental and incorporates the UCF Assistance program, economic benefits along interstate which emphasizes volunteerism and transportation routes and expanding participation by non-profit organizations. urban areas of adjacent states. Funds are provided for states to sub- grant to participating organizations, for S&PF UCF funds are awarded to the state statewide program development, and through a competitive grant process. These for state program institutional capacity. grant funds are subsequently distributed, Priority is given to projects that maximize through a competitive grant process, to leveraging of federal funds, target the partners, to leverage funding and support national UCF program goals, stimulate sustainable UCF projects that meet state UCF activity and program development and national UCF objectives. Funding for and create involvement of volunteers. the Urban and Community Forestry Program National program direction requires also supports salary and administrative each state to meet the following costs for administration of other programs criteria in order to receive funding: that benefit Mississippi’s urban forest communities. The MFC partners with the zz A full-time Urban and Community Mississippi Department of Transportation Forestry coordinator; (MDOT) to deliver the Transportation zz A full-time partnership coordinator Enhancement Tree Planting grant program. or equivalent capability (grants Primary emphasis is on providing administration, organizations, etc.); z technical assistance through the state z Support for an operating forestry organizations in support of state UCF Council; and, z UCF planning, training and continuing z Completion of an active comprehensive education, demonstration projects, and state UCF strategic plan. (Under assisting local and state governments redesign of S&PF, state forest and non-profit organizations in developing resource assessments and viable and continuing UCF programs. response plans, with urban forestry components will be accepted in lieu 134 of state UCF strategic plans. Expired zz School, Club and Community plans may be extended pending appearances by MFC and development of state forest resource MUFC promoting Urban Forestry assessments and response plans). concepts and proper tree care. zz Fund urban forest inventory training. Scope of Work: Develop self-sustaining urban and MFC’s UCF Program will provide statewide community forestry programs at technical assistance and will utilize the local and state levels. traditional and non-traditional partners to accomplish national program goals using zz Grant funds to facilitate urban forest current partnerships, such as the Mississippi management in a community, i.e., Urban Forest Council (MUFC) and new establishing a tree ordinance, a partnerships developed throughout the tree board, urban forester and state. State objectives identified in the an Urban Management plan. MFC’s Urban and Community Forestry Strategic Plan and/or strategies established Encourage partnerships in support of urban by this statewide assessment and and community forestry in Mississippi. strategy document support the National zz Utilize the Mississippi Forest Resource Urban and Community Forestry program Assessment to evaluate and create goals. Current program objectives are: strategic plans, including urban Increase awareness of the importance forest concerns, with a variety of of trees and urban forest management government and private partners. z in the urban environment. z Grant funding to projects that leverage funding and partner zz Through Public Outreach and MUFC with non-traditional partners. training and promotional programs zz School, Club and Community Seek funding opportunities for appearances by MFC and MUFC implementing urban and community promoting Urban Forestry concepts forestry programs in Mississippi. z Work to ensure a healthy urban z Leverage UCF grant funds with other environment and livable cities in Mississippi agency (MDOT and SBA) funds. z through urban forest management. z Continue to award grant funding to creative and sustainable urban zz Promoting and supporting the National and community forestry projects Arbor Day Foundation’s Tree City on a competitive basis. USA, Tree Campus USA, Tree Line USA and other programs. The federal UFC Assistance Grant will be used for salary and administration Increase technical expertise in urban and support of MFC’s Urban and Community community forestry practices and provide staff. The MFC staff will then be able to education and training opportunities provide technical and financial assistance to urban forest managers, tree care to communities, non-profits and educational providers, consultants, foresters, and institutes on urban forestry related volunteers on urban and community forest topics to manage their resources. management and proper tree care. This salary support also supports the zz Fund and support MUFC’s Master administration of Mississippi Department Urban Forestry Training workshops of Transportation Enhancement Tree

135 Planting grants, as well as other urban compared to objectives. The Community forestry programs offered by various Accomplishment Reporting System partners. Federal Urban and Community is used to track program results. Forestry Assistance funding supports various MUFC activities, such as the Annual Conference, Arbor Day Poster Contest, A. 2. Other MFC Programs and Tree City USA activities. Remaining funds will be distributed as cost-share In addition to S&PF programs, MFC provides grants to encourage leveraging of federal several other programs and services that funds to promote urban forestry and can be used to implement recommended increase the benefits of urban forestry. strategies such as the Forest Management, The following is an overview of eight other Emphasis will be on establishing and major program areas (Forest Management, educating urban forestry organizations, Forest Protection, Forest Information, inventory and enhancement of Mississippi’s Resources Analysis/Economic Development, urban forest resources, with focus on Underserved Landowner Outreach, Forest priority urban forest areas around the Inventory and Analysis and Mississippi state. No more than 15 percent of grant Statewide Forestry Water Quality Program). funds will be used to fund tree planting projects. Under-spent or turned-back grant allocations will be reutilized for A.2.1 Forest Management projects based on the above objectives. Methodology: MFC is charged in MS Code Section 49- 19-3 to “promote sound forest management Mississippi’s UCF objectives will be practices which maintain the integrity of accomplished through existing and newly the environment and provide for our state’s developed partnerships with a wide variety future natural resource needs.” The agency of organizations across the state. MFC offers a variety of forest management will seek new sources of funding for urban services to private nonindustrial owners forestry activities as traditional sources of of relatively small acreages. Landowners funding are shrinking. Program success with large forest ownerships are referred will be measured using the objectives to private consulting foresters. in Mississippi’s Urban and Community Strategic Plan. In addition, the number of MFC offers the following Forest participants in the following programs will Management programs: be used to measure success: Tree City Forest Resource Development USA, national Arbor Day poster contest Program (FRDP) and urban forestry technical training. FRDP was established in 1974 by the Location: Statewide, with emphasis Mississippi Legislature for developing on established and developing cities and the state’s forest economy. MFC communities with urban forestry needs. is responsible for coordinating the Special emphasis will be focused on technical assistance components and areas of rapid urban expansion, including financial elements of this program. DeSoto/Tate Counties, the Jackson metro counties, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. This program provides cost-share funding Accomplishment Reporting: for tree planting and forest improvement practices for the purpose of long-term timber The end-of-year accomplishment reports production. This program helps offset a must reflect accomplishments as landowner’s expense by sharing the cost 136 of implementing specific forestry practices the work to ensure that the practice has designed to produce timber and enhance been applied in compliance with FRDP wildlife development. Cost-share payments standards. The cost-share payment is made cover approximately 50 to 75 percent to the landowner after all recommended (depending on the practice) of the total practices have been completed according cost of implementing one or more forestry to specifications and the landowner has practices, at a flat rate established for each paid all costs related to each practice. individual practices. Eligible landowners can Cost-share rates and practices are receive up to $7,000 of FRDP assistance a subject to change. Practices are allowed year. In turn, a landowner agrees to protect that support the following objectives: the area receiving FRDP assistance from fire and grazing and to properly manage Tree Planting Objective: To establish a the area for a minimum of ten years. crop of trees by hand and/or machine planting pine or hardwood seedlings. This Since inception, FRDP has played a practice includes the cost of seedlings, significant role in providing landowners planting, and if needed, site preparation. the financial support needed to turn idle Each site to be planted is placed into one and unproductive lands into well-stocked, of the following categories: Open Land responsibly managed forestland that also (for tree planting only; no site prep is provides excellent wildlife habitat in many needed); Light Site Prep (when tree planting cases. FRDP is funded by the Timber is combined with light site preparation Severance Tax - a state tax collected - e.g., chemical, bushhogging, disking, when timber is harvested. The MFC subsoiling, burning, etc.); Heavy Site administers the program and provides Prep (when tree planting is combined with technical assistance to FRDP participants. heavy site preparation - e.g., chemical, chopping, shearing/raking, burning, etc.) A landowner applies for FRDP assistance at a MFC local office. The landowner has a Mixed-Stand Regeneration Objective: To forest management prescription prepared establish a mixed-crop of pine and hardwood for each area where FRDP assistance trees by planting and/or direct seeding. will be applied. The prescription lists the This practice includes the cost of seedlings, forestry practices needed to establish or seed/acorns, planting, seeding, and if improve a crop of trees. It can be prepared needed, light or heavy site preparation. by the service forester, private forestry consultant, or other registered forester. Direct Seeding Objective: To establish The landowner submits the prescription a crop of pine or oak trees by directly to the service forester for approval. Once applying seed/acorns to the site. This approved, the landowner is responsible practice includes the cost of seed/ for making the necessary arrangements acorns, seeding and if needed, to implement each practice (e.g., contract light or heavy site preparation. with vendor, order seedlings, etc.). As each Post-Planting Site Preparation Objective: To practice is applied, the landowner makes reduce or control undesirable competition periodic inspections to ensure that the within the first growing season of an work meets quality standards required by established crop of trees. This practice FRDP. The service forester will explain what includes the cost of site preparation. to look for when making an inspection. Firebreaks Objective: To construct a As each practice is completed, the permanent firebreak, including the landowner notifies the service forester, establishment of a vegetative cover. This who then makes a final inspection of practice includes the cost of firebreak 137 construction, vegetative seed, fertilizer, will be forwarded to landowner only and application of seed and fertilizer. after costs have been paid.) zz Protect trees established Release of Desirable Trees Objective: with FRDP assistance from To release an existing crop of desirable destructive fire and grazing. trees from undesirable, woody zz Use the area improved for the long- vegetation. This practice includes the term purpose of growing timber. application and cost of chemical. zz Ensure that property lines are Special Case Practice Objective: To apply a correct and clearly marked. series of forest management practices over FRDP assistance will not be repeated a defined period of time in order to reach the for any practice except when failure is desired management objective(s). A special caused by natural disaster and cannot case practice must be confined to a specific be applied on any acreage already area where traditional forestry practices receiving federally funded assistance. will not meet desired forest management objectives (e.g., kudzu control). Approximately three million dollars each year is distributed to private forest FRDP assistance is available to landowners landowners in Mississippi. At the end of in all Mississippi counties who own at fiscal year 2008, in excess of $78 million least 10 acres of manageable land. dollars has been distributed to landowners. Landowners eligible for assistance include: The funding for this program is generated zz Private nonindustrial landowners, through a timber severance tax. groups, or associations Private Lands Program zz Landowning state agencies zz Political subdivision of Mississippi The MFC provides technical and financial assistance to private nonindustrial forest Applications for FRDP assistance are landowners (NIPF) in Mississippi. Of the accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. state’s 19 million acres of forestlands, 77 Landowners failing to receive immediate percent, or more than 13 million acres, cost-share assistance will be notified belongs to an estimated 350,000 NIPF as soon as funds become available. owners with parcels of 10 acres or greater. Landowners receiving FRDP Most technical assistance and forestry assistance are responsible for advice is free to the landowner. Direct meeting these requirements: services available for a fee include survival zz Provide a forest management checks, southern pine beetle suppression prescription for each area where cost- activities, BMP audit team participation and share assistance will be applied. training, prescribed burning, Streamside zz Implement all practices approved in Management Zone (SMZ) establishment, the forest management prescription. compliance checks, GIS/GPS mapping zz Carry out each practice as soon and acreage verification, firelane/firebreak as possible following approval. (All establishment and/or maintenance, road/ forestry practices must be completed skid trail/loading dock maintenance, during the fiscal year for which they vegetation management. A list of are approved - a period from July 1 professional forestry consultants as well as of one year to June 30 of the next.) private forestry vendors, timber buyers and zz Pay the total cost of implementing each loggers is available from local MFC offices. approved practice. (FRDP payment

138 Public Lands Program wildfires still continue to plague Mississippi. As an average, there are about 3,400 Through the Public Lands program, the wildfires each year in Mississippi burning MFC provides management assistance to over 58,000 acres. Providing assistance boards, agencies, and other entities having to the state’s volunteer fire departments jurisdiction over the public forestlands has had a great impact on improving in Mississippi. The MFC responsibilities wildfire protection in Mississippi. included the management of two State Forests (Kurtz State Forest and Camden Under the umbrella of Forest Protection, State Forest); providing technical the MFC offers the following services direction on the management of school to the residents of Mississippi trust lands under the administration of Wildfire Control: the local school boards; and rendering assistance to the various agencies, The MFC is charged by law to suppress boards, departments and other entities wildfires occurring day or night on having jurisdiction over state and other approximately timbered and uncultivated non-federal public lands in Mississippi. lands. Wildfire detection is provided by School Trust Lands (Sixteenth airplane surveillance coupled with the Section Lands) public’s reporting of wildfires using toll- free numbers provided by the MFC. In accordance with Mississippi Code, County fire suppression crews are Section 29-3-45, the MFC is charged dispatched from a central dispatching with the responsibility of assisting school center located at a district office. boards with the management of forestlands on school trust property in Mississippi. MS Code Section 49-19-3 mandates There are over 430,000 forested Public the MFC “Take such action and provide School Trust Land acres in sixty-seven and maintain such organized means counties that are under management and as may seem necessary and expedient marketing agreement with the MFC. to prevent, control, and extinguish forest fires, including the enforcement It is the aim of the MFC to maximize timber of any and all laws pertaining to the production on a sustained yield basis on protection of forests and woodlands.” School Trust Lands classified as “Forest Land” by the local school boards. In MS Code Section 49-19-25 authorizes addition to timber production, management the MFC to enter any and all lands considerations also include wildlife, soil for the purpose of suppressing and and water quality, aesthetics and other controlling any fires declared a public appropriate benefits of forestlands. nuisance by reason of its menace to life and property. This law also authorizes the MFC to charge for all costs associated with suppressing the A.2.2 Forest Protection fire. Any open cistern or well, which In 1926 Mississippi legislature mandated has been abandoned or is not longer that the MFC protect the state’s forestland used for the purpose of cistern or well is from wildfire. At that time, wildfires were hereby declared to be public nuisance by consuming more than five million acres of reason of its menace to life and property, timberland each year. Since 1926, great and the MFC is authorized to seal such strides in wildfire prevention, detection, and cistern or well for a reasonable fee. suppression have been taken. However,

139 MS Code Section 97-17-13 establishes the fire onto the lands of another shall be the penalty and fines for wood evidence that such person recklessly or arson (willfully or negligently firing with gross negligence caused the land woods, marsh, meadows, etc). MS to burn.” A Woods Arson Citation maybe Code Section 95-5-25 establishes issued for any of Mississippi fire statutes. the penalty and fine for wantonly Section 97-17-13. Arson - willfully negligently or carelessly allowing any or negligently firing woods, fire to get onto the lands of another. marsh, meadow, etc. Burning Permits: If any person willfully, maliciously, and In conjunction with the Mississippi feloniously sets on fire any woods, Department of Environmental Quality meadows, marsh, field or prairie, not his (MDEQ), the MFC issues burning permits own, he shall be guilty of a felony and based on the daily fire weather forecast. shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to Permits are required for any fire set for the state penitentiary for not more than a recognized agricultural and/or forestry two years nor less than one year, or purpose. Landowners can call the local fined not less than $200 nor more than Central Dispatch Center (see map of districts $1,000, or both, in the discretion of the below) to inquire about a burning permit and court. Provided, however, if any person answer the following questions: Type of recklessly or with gross negligence burning (agriculture or forestry); Number of causes fire to be communicated to acres; Forestry purpose (hazard reduction, any woods, meadow, marsh, field control undesirable species, control or prairie, not his own, he shall be disease, site prep, wildlife mgt or other); guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, on Landowner name, Person responsible for conviction, be fined not less than $20 fire; Address, Telephone number; Location of nor more than $500, or imprisoned property (40, section, township and range); in the county jail not more than three Beginning and end date and time of fire. 3 months, or both, in the discretion of the court. Section 97-17-13 of the Burn Bans: Mississippi Code if 1972, as amended. Burn Bans are requested by the County Section 95-5-15. By firing woods. Board of Supervisors and approved by the MFC. Any person who knowingly and If any person shall set on fire any lands willfully violates a burning ban is guilty of a of another, or shall wantonly, negligently, misdemeanor and may be fined not less than or carelessly allow any fire to get into $100 and not more than $500. Section 49- the lands of another, he shall be liable 19-351 of MS Code of 1972, as amended. to the person injured thereby, not only for the injury to or destruction of Fire Law Enforcement: buildings, fences, and the like, but for The MFC Fire Law Enforcement Officers the burning and injury of trees, timber, have the authority to bear arms, investigate and grass, and damage to the range as and make arrests in woods arson cases. well; and shall moreover be liable to a Under section 49-19-3 of the Mississippi penalty of $150 in favor of the owner. Code of 1972 “... the fact than any person Other Fire Programs is found to have a brush or debris pile or other material which is or was being The Federal Excess Personal burned and reasonable and prudent effects Property Program (FEPP) refers were not taken to prevent the spread of to USFS-owned property that is on loan to State Foresters for the purpose of 140 wild land and rural firefighting. Most of Team (WUIWT) of the National Wildfire the property originally belonged to the Coordinating Group, a consortium of Department of Defense (DoD). Once wildland fire organizations and federal acquired by the USFS, it is loaned to State agencies responsible for wildland fire Cooperators for firefighting purposes. It management in the United States. The is technically no longer excess at that WUIWT includes: USDA Forest Service, point. The State Forester makes the initial USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, USDI decision that a FEPP item is appropriate Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish for use, and the USDA Forest Service and Wildlife Service, USDI National Park must concur. The property is then loaned Service, Federal Emergency Management to the State Forester, who may then Agency, US Fire Administration, International place it with local departments to improve Association of Fire Chiefs, National local fire programs. Approximately 70 Association of State Fire Marshals, National percent of the property involved in the Association of State Foresters, National Forest Service FEPP program is sub- Emergency Management Association, loaned to local fire departments. National Fire Protection Association. Unlike the VFA which is for the benefit of Roscommon Equipment Center is a communities with a population at or below cooperative program between the National 10,000, recipients of FEPP need only Association of State Foresters and the have a wildland or rural fire responsibility Michigan Department of Natural Resources, that satisfies the State Forester. develops and tests equipment for wildland fire control. It is located at the Forest Fire The national Firewise Communities Experiment Station, Roscommon, Michigan. Program is a multi-agency effort designed Founded in 1972, REC specializes in to reach beyond the fire service by involving the conversion of U.S. Military vehicles homeowners, community leaders, planners, to wildland fire suppression units. It also developers, and others in the effort to protect focuses on the equipment development people, property, and natural resources needs of state and local wildfire forces. from the risk of wildland fire - before a fire starts. The Firewise Communities approach Department of Defense Firefighter emphasizes community responsibility Program (FFP) - Under the authority for planning in the design of a safe of the USFS, MFC obtains equipment community as well as effective emergency that is excess to the needs of the response, and individual responsibility federal government. MFC transfers for safer home construction and design, this equipment, through Cooperative landscaping and maintenance. This Agreements to Volunteer Fire Departments program is intended to serve as a resource or authorized entity. Any community, for agencies, tribes, organizations, fire organized fire district or department with departments, and communities across the an assigned or assumed fire suppression U.S. who are working toward a common responsibility over any portion of the state goal: reduce loss of lives, property, and is eligible to receive FFP property. resources to wildland fire by building and zz Fire department or authorized maintaining communities in a way that is entities receiving FFP property compatible with natural surroundings. must follow these provisions: Firewise Communities is part of the zz Recipients of DoD Firefighter Property National Wildland/Urban Interface Fire must sign a “Cooperative Equipment Program, which is directed and sponsored Agreement” with the MFC at the by the Wildland/Urban Interface Working time they accept the property.

141 zz Request for transfer of DoD Firefighter release forestry and agency information property can only be made on to the public at large. A variety of delivery equipment that can effectively be methods are used in order to reach the made usable and put into service for public in the most effective manner. firefighting and/or emergency use. Objectives of the Office of z z VFD or Authorized Entity accepts Forest Information are: title of said property in the VFD or Entity name (not an individual zz To share/disseminate forestry and related member of the VFD or Entity). information to appropriate publics. zz Maintains property records for zz To educate youth and adults about a minimum of six years after forestry and related issues and acquisition of said property. MFC services and programs. zz Cooperators must secure and maintain zz To inform the citizens of Mississippi of liability insurance on vehicles in their use. the threat to forest health (fire, insects, zz Cooperators are responsible for disease, severe storm damage, etc.). painting and placing the equipment in zz To support the MFC’s programs in the operation within six months of receipt. form of publicity, and public awareness. zz Cooperators must maintain equipment zz To be a liaison with other organizations in operable condition, and make it and agencies in order to present forestry available for inspection at the request and related programs and information. of the MFC, USDA Forest Service, DoD Office of Inspector General and The Office of Forest the Comptroller General of the United Information includes the States or his authorized representative. following program areas: z z Owners of Firefighter Program property zz Champion Tree Program will cooperate with federal and state zz Forestry Facts & Wildfire Data parties to ensure compliance in federal zz MFC News(Agency Newsletter) and state regulations and programs and zz Underserved Landowner property management requirements. Outreach Program GSA Wildland Fire Program - U. S. zz Press Releases and Public Information General Services Administration (GSA) zz Public Outreach furnishes wildland fire protection equipment zz Urban/ Community Forestry and supplies to VFD’s and authorized zz Wildfire Prevention entities through cooperative agreements. Public Outreach: GSA’s objectives of the program are to facilitate advance procurement The MFC maintains an active public and assist in the standardization of outreach program designed to heighten the wildland fire equipment and supplies. public’s awareness of the agency’s mission, services, and the importance of the forest resources. The outreach program utilizes A.2.3 Forest Information mass media outlets (e.g., radio, television, and newspaper) to broadcast public service The Office of Forest Information supports announcements and general forestry all MFC program areas by providing information to the public at large. Public information, program promotional activities, outreach activities are carried out locally to and program publicity. The Office of Forest reach individuals at the community level. Information utilizes mass media outlets (e.g., radio, television, and newspaper) to

142 Mississippi Project Learning Tree: and community forestry programs, and in support of economic development. The MFC helps sponsor of the MS PLT program. PLT is an Environmental In an effort to promote economic Education Program that trains teachers to development in regard to the state’s forest bring the environment into the classroom. resources, MFC provides forest resource information and maps for economic Canon Envirothon: development. A statewide assessment The MFC helps provide environmental of forest resources is maintained utilizing education to high school students through satellite imagery to estimate forest the State Envirothon program. High removals, regeneration and developmental School teams complete in environmental stages. The MFC works jointly with the subject areas of forestry, wildlife, Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory aquatics, soils, and other topics. (MIFI) to inventory the state’s forest resources. The MFC works in conjunction Natural Resource Summer Camp: with the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) to provide forest-based The MFC and the MSU College of Forest economic development in the state. Resources (CFR) partner to provide high school students the opportunity to learn about careers in natural resources. This week-long camp is held on the A. 2.5 Underserved Landowner campus of MSU in June of each year. Outreach Program Students learn from and get one on one The Underserved Landowner Outreach instruction from many natural resources program provides assistance to professionals. Students learn about underserved landowners in Mississippi. forestry, urban forestry, GIS and GPS, This program has three primary goals: fire management, wildlife and fisheries provide outreach support and technical management, forest products and more. assistance to underserved landowners, There are classroom activities, field trips, lab encourage young people to seek careers exercises, hands on activities and more. in forestry, and to work with Alcorn Conservation Education: State University (ASU) to develop and/ or enhance projects of mutual forestry The MFC is actively involved and has many interest. The Underserved Landowner partners to bring environmental education to Outreach program is a joint project students and adult audiences. Classroom between the MFC, ASU and the USFS. visits and landowner field days are a regular part of MFC’s outreach activities. A. 2.6 Urban and Community Forestry A.2.4 Resources Analysis/ Economic Development MFC provides assistance and training to urban areas (cities and counties) The MFC’s Resource Analysis program that are developing community forestry oversees the development, implementation, programs. This includes assistance with and management of the agency’s tree ordinances, street tree inventories geographic information system. This and urban forest management plans. The is a statewide system utilized by fire, MFC also assists builders in the form public lands, private lands, and urban of technical advice on tree preservation

143 during construction and helps homeowners during the implementation of forestry with advice on insect diseases and practices in Mississippi: MDEQ, Mississippi other tree care problems. Many urban Forestry Association (MFA), Mississippi residents owning forestland are reached Automated Resource Information System with information about improving the (MARIS), Southern Group of State Foresters condition of their rural timberland through (SGSF), MIFI and MSU Extension Service. the MFC’s Urban Forestry Program. Current program activities include: MFC’s Urban and Community Forestry z Program oversees planting and grant z Statewide Best Management management of urban tree planting for Practices (BMP) Implementation various agencies. The Transportation Monitoring on a three-year cycle. z Enhancement Tree Planting Program z Coordination of a statewide Water is administered by the MFC’s Urban Quality Team within the MFC that will and Community Forestry Program with be trained and equipped to provide financial support from the Mississippi leadership in water quality protection Department of Transportation and efforts. Members of this team will serve advisory support from the MUFC, Inc. on the various basin teams and river teams throughout the state and address forestry issues affecting water quality. zz Exchange of information with logger A.2.7 Forest Inventory groups, landowners, industry and and Analysis (FIA) urban audiences through a web site, FIA reports on status and trends in forest presentations and workshops. area and location; in the species, size, zz Assistance to DEQ in and health of trees; in total tree growth, investigating forestry-related mortality, and removals by harvest; in wood water quality complaints. production and utilization rates by various zz Serve on water quality committees products; and in forestland ownership. FIA is that are related to forestry Best managed by the Research and Development Management Practices. organization within the USDA Forest Service zz Produce two videos on BMPs: one in cooperation with S&PF and National for general awareness about BMPs Forest systems. FIA has been in operation and water quality and the other a under various names (Forest Survey, Forest technical video for training purposes Inventory and Analysis) for 70 years. on BMPs. Provide Mississippi DEQ 100 copies of each video. In 2008, MFC assumed the responsibility zz Develop water quality displays of data collection for the continuous forest for educational purposes for inventory for the state of Mississippi. a variety of audiences. A complete inventory consists of a zz Publish the results of BMP 7-year-cycle of yearly panels measuring monitoring at the end of the three- approximately 5,200 plots in Mississippi. year cycle on MFC web site, DEQ web site, as well as other appropriate distribution methods. A.2.8 Mississippi Statewide Forestry zz Reprint BMP handbook, if Water Quality Protection Program needed. Create a CD version of the BMP handbook. The following organizations are partners in carrying out a statewide program aimed at ensuring that water quality is protected 144 The MFC serves as the lead organization This proposal calls for an assessment of on this project. The objective of this project forest harvesting activities across the state is to evaluate the implementation and use that will be conducted in order to determine of voluntary BMPs throughout the state of how many sites to evaluate in each basin. Mississippi. By monitoring voluntary BMPs The basis for this assessment will be on a continuous cycle and widely distributing the 2007 Forest Resource Assessment the results, BMP implementation rates conducted by the MFC in cooperation will increase. Through this program, the with MARIS Technical Center and MIFI. MFC will work with other forestry-related z groups in promoting water quality within the z Statistical Sample state and will conduct monitoring of the The number of sites to be evaluated will Best Management Practices Implementation be determined by a random stratified Monitoring on a three-year cycle: sample of forest removals identified in the 2007 MFC Resource Assessment. The MFC will evaluate the implementation The Forest Resource Assessment of Forestry Best Management Practices identified the forest removals and for all nine major river basins in the other cover changes in each county state of Mississippi. The guidelines set by classifying TM satellite imagery forth in Silviculture Best Management for the periods of 2000 and 2003. Practices Implementation Monitoring: A Framework for State Forestry Agencies To maximize the validity and credibility will be used to develop the survey. of the sample plot selection, the number of sites evaluated for Best In 2007, the MFC conducted a statewide Management Practices implementation assessment of the use of voluntary BMPs will be calculated to provide in forestry. The assessment showed that minimum error (± 5 percent) and high BMPs are being utilized on 89 percent of confidence level of 95 percent. locations where BMPs are applicable. zz Selecting Sites This BMP project is a continuation of an Once the number of sites to be ongoing statewide base program funded evaluated per county is determined, through Section 319(h) Grant funds. This an aerial reconnaissance will be used project will monitor silvicultural measures to identify the specific sites to be to mitigate nonpoint source pollution; it evaluated on the ground. The following will evaluate practices in the areas of criteria will be used in identifying sites SMZs, Woodlands Trails and Roads, to be evaluated on the ground. Forest Harvesting, Site Preparation, Tree Planting, Landings, Wetlands, ✓✓ Forest harvesting activity must have Fireline Construction and Revegetation occurred within last 24 months. of Disturbed Forest Sites. According to ✓✓ Sites must be ten acres or greater. the Forest Resource Assessment, some ✓ type of forest activity occurs on nearly ✓ Sites will be selected for monitoring 850,000 acres annually in Mississippi. This without regard to ownership. represents approximately five percent of zz Collecting Data the state’s forestland. If BMPs are not 1. Data will be collected by members followed on these acres, the sites will be of the MFC Water Quality Team. prone to increased sediment, increased This will help to ensure consistency water temperature, and nutrient loading. and credibility. Applicable BMPs will

145 be evaluated on each site. Each presentations support the Mississippi Urban member of the Water Quality Team and Community Forestry Management is trained specifically on BMPs Manual. This collection of information and water quality monitoring. and resources needs to be presented to a Water Quality Team members are broad audience group of people who impact local specialist for their area. decision-making and can take action. 2. Statewide Mississippi Forestry The MFC will conduct one workshop in each Water Quality Team off the nine major river basins to inform and instruct people on use of the Manual and The MFC Water Quality Coordinator companion resources. Workshops will target and District Water Quality community groups, county groups, and Coordinators will continue to developers who are interested. Particular represent the forestry community emphasis will be given to those impacted on each MDEQ Basin Management by Phase II Stormwater regulations. Team addressing forestry issues. The MFC will provide advance notice 3. Exchange of Information with logger of scheduled presentations and groups, landowners, industry and workshops to Mississippi DEQ. urban audiences through a web site, presentations and workshops. 4. Provide Assistance in Investigating Forestry-Related The MFC will work with cooperative partners Water Quality Complaints to provide between 12 to 18 educational presentations to landowners, loggers, MFC District Water Quality Coordinators industry, and other relative audiences. will respond to forestry complaints and participate in conflict resolution. For The MFC will maintain a web page these cases, the MFC will provide the designed to inform landowners MDEQ with a report of findings. Since the and the forest community of Best MFC is not an enforcement agency, the Management Practices in Mississippi. MFC will notify the MDEQ of any water Urban Forestry for Water Quality and quality violations. Mississippi Department Quantity Management – Management must of Environmental Quality will provide be conducted throughout a watershed appropriate enforcement measures. to be effective. One vital portion of the 5. The Water Quality Coordinator will serve management efforts is in and adjacent on the following committees that are to urban areas. Many diffuse sources of related to forestry water quality issues: pollution emanate from urban streets, parking lots, lawns, and buildings. Many Mississippi Forestry Association of the pollutants can be absorbed and State Implementation Committee treated through the use of urban trees and forests. These forests also bring many other zz Mississippi Forestry benefits, which are tangible and significant. Association BMP Taskforce The Sustainable Urban Forests project zz Southern Group of State Foresters created tools and publications that are useful Water Quality Taskforce for improving and protecting water quality A Best Management Practices on urban sites. Companion publications Implementation Monitoring Report and a cost benefit model, a brochure summarizing the data collected will be and poster, and a series of PowerPoint

146 prepared. Once complete, the MFC will The Mississippi Reforestation Tax work with the MFA, MDEQ and other Credit provides a Mississippi income partners to evaluate and determine what tax credit up to 50 percent of the cost of issues, if any, should be addressed and approved hardwood and pine reforestation develop strategies to address problem practices. The tax credit promotes areas. If problems are detected, the reforestation on private, nonindustrial MFC will work with the MSU Extension lands. The credit applies only to individuals Service to provide education, training, and or groups of private, nonindustrial awareness in the problem areas to limit landowners. There is a lifetime limit of the impact on water quality in the state. $75,000. Any unused tax credit may carry over into future years. Landowners must have a reforestation plan prepared by a B. OTHER FORESTRY PROGRAMS graduate or registered forester. The cost of planting orchards, Christmas trees, B.1 State and Federal Forest or ornamental trees does not qualify. Conservation Programs for Private Landowners The overall goal of the Limited Resource Farmer Program is to Several state and federal programs have increase assistance to small or limited been developed to provide incentives resource and minority producers and and technical assistance to landowners directly improve the farm income of these to encourage reforestation, protection producers. The NRCS sponsors the and management of existing forests and Limited Resource Farmer Program. to discourage conversion of forestland to other uses. The following is a list The Mississippi Scenic Streams Stewardship of most state and federal programs Program (SSSP) was established in 1999 that provide assistance to forest by the Mississippi Legislature to encourage landowners. Many of these programs voluntary private conservation efforts by will complement, enhance or support the riparian (streamside) landowners. Once a Forest Legacy Program in Mississippi. public waterway in Mississippi is designated by legislative action as scenic, MDWFP The Landowner Incentive Program as the lead agency through its Mississippi (LIP) is a recent initiative coordinated by Museum of Natural Science (MMNS) and the MDWFP in conjunction with the non- its Advisory Council, develop a cooperative, profit conservation organization, Wildlife voluntary stewardship plan for the Mississippi, using federal funds to enhance, stream. Individual landowner agreements restore and protect imperiled habitats and can provide a connected patchwork of benefit at-risk wildlife on private lands. protected stream banks along the length Priorities in Mississippi are longleaf pine of a stream. The goal is to maintain good ecosystems in the southeast part of the water quality for recreation and fish and state, blackland prairie in the northeast and wildlife habitat. Achievement of the goal central sections and bottomland hardwoods is through use of Forestry BMPs which in the delta. LIP confers funds to landowners are water quality improvement practices in these priority areas to cost-share practices that will maintain the health of streams by such as site preparation, prescribed burning, keeping stream banks in good condition tree and native warm season grass plantings and preventing harmful sedimentation. and herbicide applications. Biologists In 2003, the Legislature enacted a law to provide technical guidance to all interested allow a Mississippi income tax credit on landowners and projects are reviewed and 50 percent of allowable transaction costs ranked by a team to determine eligibility. 147 (appraisals, baseline surveys, engineering decisions to be made concerning and surveying fees, legal fees, title review prioritization of management and insurance, etc) up to a limit of $10,000 activities and to look for new element for landowners placing lands adjacent to “occurrences” not previously documented scenic streams in conservation easements. during the inventory process. zz To conserve outstanding examples of State Wildlife Grants Program The our natural heritage by use of innovative (SWG) is another relatively new program management and protection strategies established by Congress in 2001 and (working with landowners, developing administered by the MDWFP through management plans, monitoring the MMNS to direct federal funding to elements of diversity on established the states for cost-effective conservation natural areas). No funding is available aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming at this time to acquire natural areas. endangered. Projects are aimed at protecting priority habitat for Species of The Conservation Reserve Program Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) (CRP), established in the 1985 Farm identified through the state’s Comprehensive Bill and administered by the USDA Farm Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) Service Agency’s (FSA), is a voluntary and can be used for an array of protection program available to agricultural producers and restoration efforts on public and private to help them safeguard environmentally lands. Funding, which is minimal at this time, sensitive land. Producers enrolled in CRP was contingent on the approval of the state’s plant long-term, resource-conserving covers CWCS by the US Fish and Wildlife Service such as trees and grasses to improve (USFWS) which occurred in January 2006. the quality of water, control soil erosion and enhance wildlife habitat. In return, Mississippi Natural Heritage The FSA provides participants with rental Program , housed within the MMNS, payments and cost-share assistance. has three major areas of activity: Contract duration is between 10 and 15 z z To conduct a comprehensive inventory years for eligible lands that are cropland of Mississippi’s ecological resources in (including field margins) that are planted order to provide a continuous process or considered planted to an agricultural for identifying significant natural areas commodity during four of the previous and setting land protection priorities six crop years, and which are physically in the state. Information on the status and legally capable of being planted in a and distribution of exemplary biotic normal manner to an agricultural commodity communities, rare and endangered or certain marginal pastureland that is plants and animals, aquatic and enrolled in the Water Bank Program or marine habitats, geological and suitable for use as a riparian buffer or other natural features is collected, for similar water quality purposes. stored, and analyzed in an integrated data management system. Preference is given to lands within zz To conduct field surveys to verify the Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs), continued existence of a reported selected by state and federal agencies occurrence of a rare plant, animal, and state technical committees as being or community type (an “element”), to particularly environmentally sensitive. collect sufficient information on the Conservation occurrence, distribution, and status An offspring of CRP is the Reserve Enhancement Program of elements (status surveys) to allow (CREP) is a voluntary land retirement

148 program that helps agricultural producers receive 75 percent of the market value protect environmentally sensitive land, of the enrolled lands plus the cost of decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat the approved conservation practices. and safeguard ground and surface water. The Wetlands Reserve Program Environmental Quality Incentives (WRP) was established to restore wetland Program (EQIP) was created in the 1996 functions and values to land altered for Farm Bill. Fifty percent of the funding must agriculture and contribute to the national be applied to livestock-related conservation goal of no net loss of wetlands. Previously practices. EQIP is targeted to areas where converted or farmed wetlands are eligible the most environmental benefit will be if restoration to a functional wetland is obtained by the designation of Conservation possible. Forestland that was formerly Priority Areas (CPAs). Each year, CPAs wetland is eligible where the hydrology has are established within watersheds by been altered. Landowners sell a permanent the State Conservationist based on easement or a 30-year easement to NRCS. recommendations of local work groups and the State Technical Committee. Technical A new option is a 10-year Restoration Cost- assistance to landowners is provided Share Agreement that does not require an with 5-10 year contracts. NRCS will work easement. Participating landowners agree to with landowners to prepare a complete maintain or restore the wetland as directed conservation plan. Cost-sharing is available by a WRP Plan of Operations (WRPO) for actual costs incurred, up to 75 percent prepared by the NRCS and approved by the of the costs of conservation practices such USFWS. The landowner receives payment as pest management and erosion control. for the easement as well as cost-share assistance for approved projects. Forest The Healthy Forest Reserve Program management, including harvesting, can be (HFRP) is a voluntary program established allowed if specifically stated in the plan. The to restore and enhance forest ecosystems WRPO specifies the timing, amount, method, to promote the recovery of threatened and intensity and duration of any permitted endangered species, improve biodiversity use, including timber harvesting. NRCS and enhance carbon sequestration. Signed reserves the right to modify a particular use into law as part of the Healthy Forest if conditions of the easement area change, Restoration Act of 2003, the program is and considers the management plan a living authorized to be carried out under the document that can be updated over time. administration of the USDA NRCS. The program allows for three enrollment options: No harvesting methods will be allowed that the NRCS feels are not 1. A 10-year cost-share agreement consistent with long-term protection of for which the landowner may the wetland functions and values. receive 50 percent of the cost of Wildlife Habitat Incentives approved conservation practices; The Program (WHIP) also administered 2.A 30-year easement, for which the by NRCS provides technical advice and landowner may receive 75 percent cost-share assistance for improvement of the market value of enrolled of wildlife habitat on private lands that lands plus 75 percent of the cost of focus on national and state priorities such approved conservation practices; or as longleaf pine ecosystems and aquatic habitat restoration. Landowners desiring 3. An easement of not more than 99 to participate create a Wildlife Habitat years, for which the landowner may Development Plan (WHDP) with the help

149 of the local conservation district and NRCS habitat for species such as red-cockaded staff. Cooperating state wildlife agencies woodpeckers (RCWs) or gopher tortoise. and private organizations may give technical The theory behind the program is that assistance or additional funding for certain original habitat will be protected, most of projects if the landowner agrees. Because the new habitat will be maintained, and WHIP is focused purely on wildlife benefits, landowners will participate because they it is applicable to any landowner, tenant, will be able to manage all but the original organization, club or business with land habitat without fear of being charged with suitable for wildlife. The landowner must violations of the Endangered Species Act. have a minimum of five acres with at least Army Compatible Use one acre to be managed under WHIP for The Buffer Program (ACUB) wildlife habitat improvements. Agreement is a periods can be for five to ten years. tool granted to the military to allow partners and willing landowners with similar goals Mississippi Partners for Fish and to preserve land and prevent further Wildlife Program (MPFW) is a voluntary development of critical open areas around program administered by the USFWS military installations. An ACUB Program is with 20 federal, state, corporate and non- in place for Camp Shelby in the pine belt of profit partners which provides technical Mississippi and is being used as a method and financial assistance to landowners used by the Mississippi Army National Guard who want to restore, improve and protect to protect the intersect between Camp fish and wildlife habitats on their property. Shelby from further restrictions that limit Priority habitats in Mississippi are wetlands, training activity due to an increase in uplands, aquatics, native prairie and longleaf residential growth near their facility. It will pine ecosystems, and the emphasis for this also provide a noise buffer to surrounding program is habitat restoration. Projects with communities and residents and is designed private landowners must secure a 10-year to prioritize ecologically important areas. cooperative agreement, and the maximum amount spent per landowner is $25,000. The The ACUB Program at Camp Shelby has overarching goal is to leverage resources identified priority sites within a compatible of government agencies, organization, use buffer around the installation corporations and private individuals to and conduct land acquisition from willing restore, improve and protect fish and wildlife sellers or purchase of development rights habitats on private lands in the state. to maintain priority areas on private lands in a non-developed or natural state. The The USFWS also administers the Safe military has identified partners such as Harbor program for landowners with land trusts and natural resource agencies endangered species on their property. in the state to assist in the location and Under this program, landowners enter into acquisition of these lands or protection a voluntary cooperative agreement with of them through outright fee acquisition the Service or a state agency to improve or easements. Title or interest will not or manage habitat for existing populations be held by the federal government. of endangered species. This participation relieves landowners of the responsibility to protect any additional individuals or species that may be attracted by the improved habitat. Landowners who participate in this plan agree to maintain and manage

150 B.2 Non-Government Forest forest and scenic rivers and streams. MLT’s Conservation Programs sister organization, the Mississippi River Trust (MRT), was created in 2002 to focus Non-profit Land Trusts regionally. Their goals are to conserve and Conservancies the ecology and natural environment Land trusts are non-profit organizations of the Mississippi River Valley through created and sustained to preserve green donation of easements, to collaborate spaces and protect environmentally and/or with government and private agencies on historically significant areas through direct conservation and planning problems as land protection. They use tools such as they relate to the MRV, to acquire and hold conservation easements, estate planning, title to lands and conservation interests in donations of property and bargain sales. At the Mississippi River watershed to protect least seven state and regional land trusts them from development and to educate and conservancy organizations are active in the public about conservation. Their area protecting environmentally important lands of operation is the Mississippi River Valley in Mississippi with a focus on conservation from Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico. easements and land acquisition. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has There may be other regional and national operated in Mississippi since the 1960s and land trusts that hold easements or own their chapter office was founded in 1989. parcels in Mississippi that are not listed Since inception they have protected land here because the state is not their throughout the state through purchase, primary area of focus. Land trusts and partnership or easements throughout conservancies such as these are potential the state. Their mission is to find, protect partners for forest land conservation. and maintain the best examples of natural communities, ecosystems and The Land Trust for the Mississippi endangered species in Mississippi. Coastal Plain (LTMCP) was founded Today, the Chapter operates statewide in 2000 to conserve protect and promote and has three field offices: Jackson, the open spaces and green spaces of Mississippi Gulf Coast and Camp Shelby. ecological or cultural significance in the TNC uses their conservation area plans counties of the Mississippi Coastal Plain (CAPS) to prioritize the highest priority George, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, places that, if conserved, promise to Pearl River and Stone Counties. They ensure biodiversity over the long term. protect lands that meet established criteria through fee simple ownership The Wolf River Conservancy (WRC) and conservation easements. They also works in Benton County, Mississippi and promote grassroots conservation through Fayette and Shelby Counties in Tennessee education and community partnerships. to conserve and enhance the Wolf River as a natural resource for public education The Mississippi Land Trust (MLT), and low impact recreation. Their goal is established in 1998, has a mission is to establish a protected public greenway to improve flora and fauna resources of along the 90-mile Wolf River from its Mississippi, to hold land conservation headwaters near Holly Springs, Mississippi, interests, to educate the public about to its mouth at the Mississippi River in conservation and to develop incentive-based Memphis, Tennessee. They own property conservation programs. Their focus areas in Mississippi and Tennessee and hold are prairies, red clay hills, bottomlands and easements in Tennessee and helped bayous, coastal savannas, longleaf pine acquire land for public ownership.

151 The Wolf River Conservation Society performance measures that integrate the (WRCS) was established in 1998 to perpetual growing and harvesting of trees conserve, manage and protect the Wolf with the protection of wildlife, plants, soil River and its watershed from the headwaters and water quality with a wide range of other to its termination at the Bay of St. Louis in conservation goals. An independent Expert south Mississippi. The Wolf River watershed Review Panel consisting of representatives is in parts of Hancock, Harrison, Lamar and from the environmental, professional, Pearl River Counties. The WRCS currently conservation, academic and public sectors, holds easements almost all properties reviews the program. Through SFI, of bordering the river in Harrison County. the American Forest & Paper Association are attempting to change the way that Wetlands America Trust (WAT) private forests are managed in the U.S. is Ducks Unlimited’s fiduciary arm that holds conservation easements. Their main focus is protection of bottomland hardwood forest and existing wetlands in the Lower Mississippi Valley. In Mississippi, they focus on the upper and lower Delta with emphasis on the batture lands of the Mississippi River and on areas like the Big Black River drainage – one of the least disturbed streams in the state. Corporations

Forest products companies such as pulp and paper companies own and/or control management on significant amounts of forestland in Mississippi, many of which include unique resources and opportunities for public use and benefit. Resource protection programs consist of two types: those the industries initiate voluntarily by company policy and those that involve cooperative agreements with government agencies and conservation organizations. For instance, a portion of the Wolf River and Little Biloxi Wildlife Management Areas in southeast Mississippi are owned by Weyerhauser and managed by the MDWFP via a Memorandum of Agreement. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) program is a standard of environmental principles, objectives and

152 VIII. References

2006. Making Clean and Abundant Water Available in the South, Emerging Southwide Issues, USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, www.srs.fs.usda.gov.

Advance Mississippi. 2010. www.advancemississippi.com Alig, Ralph J.; Plantinga, Andrew J; Ahn, SoEun; Kline, Jeffrey D. 2003. Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-587. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 92 pages.

America’s Longleaf. 2009. Range-wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf Pine. Regional Working Group for America’s Longleaf, 42 pages. www.americaslongleaf.org.

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication Number 1391, Washington, D.C. USDA Forest Service.

Beck, M.W., M. Odaya, J.J. Bachant, J. Bergan, B. Keller, R. Marin, R. Mathews, C. Porter, G. Ramseur. 2000. Identification of Priority Sites for Conservation in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Ecoregional Plan. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Best, Constance and Laurie A. Wayburn. 2001. America’s Private Forests: Status and Stewardship. Pacific Forest Trust, Inc., Island Press.

Brooks, Mendell, Mike Clutter, David Newman, Dave Wear, John Greis. Under New Management: A Case Study of Southern Timberland Ownership Change. Center for Forest Business, University of Georgia. Southern Region State and Private Forestry and The Southern Research Station. Southern Group of State Foresters. 13 pages.

Clutter, Mike, Brooks Mendell, David Newman, David Wear, John Greis. Strategic Factors Driving Timberland Ownership Changes in the U.S. South. Center for Forest Business, University of Georgia. Southern Region State and Private Forestry and The Southern Research Station, Southern Group of State Foresters. 15 pages.

Cordell, Ken. and C. Overdevest. 2001. Footprints in the Land: An Assessment of Demographic Trends and the Future of Natural Resources in the United States. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, Illinois.

Cox, James L. 2001. The Mississippi Almanac – The Ultimate Reference on the State 2001-2002. Rose Printing Company, Tallahassee, Florida. 629 pages.

Daniels, Bob.1999. Daniels, Bob. 1998. The Importance of forest management and timber harvests in local economies: A Mississippi Example, Southern Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 2, Southern Rural Development Center.

Doolittle, Larry. August 1996. An Inventory of Private Landowners in Mississippi, Final Report for the Mississippi Forest Stewardship Committee. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, 32 pages.

Ecosystem Services in Urban & Developing Areas: Current Knowledge and Market Development, October 2007. Gill, Joshua K., Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA., Hartel, Dudley R., USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Urban Forestry South, Athens, GA., Bergstrom, John C., Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA., Bowker, J.M., USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA. 153 Redux Energy. 2010. Mississippi Energy Portal. http://www.eredux.com/states/state_detail.php?id=1141 &state=MISSISSIPPI&PHPSESSID=uqp1136aiilsqm06183veookf0

Executive Order 13423 – Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy and Transportation Management. January 26, 2007.

Fickle, James E. 2001. Mississippi Forests and Forestry. The University of Mississippi Press, Jackson, Mississippi, 347 pages.

Forbes (online).July 2008. America’s Best Places for Alternative Energy. http://www.forbes. com/2008/07/09/energy-solar-green-biz-energy-cx_bp_0709atlas.html

Forest Health Conditions National and Regional Reports http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/fhm/fhh/ fhh_09/ms_fhh_09.pdf

Forest Stewardship Program National Standards and Guidelines http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/library/ fsp_standards&guidelines.pdf

Future of Mississippi’s Natural Resources. Conference Report. May 2006. Mississippi State University College of Forest Resources

Gill, Joshua K., Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Hartel, Dudley R., USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Urban Forestry South, Georgia, Bergstrom, John C., Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia, Bowker, J.M., USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Georgia. Ecosystem Services in Urban & Developing Areas: Current Knowledge and Market Development. October 2007. 83 pages.

Husak, A.L., S.C. Grado. 2005. Mississippi Urban and Community Forest Management Manual. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Publication FO 417, Mississippi State University. 191 pages.

Hughes, H. G. 2006. Hurricane Katrina: Impacts on different pine species and implications for landowners. Tree Talk (Winter): 26-27.

Hughes, Glenn. Longleaf pine in Mississippi. Publication 2201 of the Mississippi State University Extension Service. http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2201.htm

Jacobs, Jennifer, Raghavan Srinivasan, Brad Barber. October 2008. Southern Forest Land Assessment. Spatial Sciences Labratory Texas AgriLife Research Texas A&M University System, Texas Forest Service.

Land Trust Alliance, www.lta.org

Louv, Richard. Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 390 pages.

Macie, Edward A.; L. Annie Hermansen, eds. 2002. Human Influences on Forest Ecosystems: The Southern Wildland-Urban Interface Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-55. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 159 pages.

Mashour, Terri, Martha C. Monroe. Policies and Programs that Affect Ecosystem Health in the Wildland- Urban interface. October 2008, School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. 9 pages.

Measells, Marcus K., Stephen C. Grado, H. Glenn Hughes. 2004. The Status of Mississippi Forest Landowners. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Publication No. FO369, Mississippi State University, p 157- 166.

154 Mendell, Brooks, Mike Clutter, David Newman, Dave Wear, John Greis. Under New Management: A Case Study of Southern Timberland Ownership Changes. Center for Forest Business, University of Georgia. Southern Region State and Private Forestry and The Southern Research Station, Southern Group of State Foresters. 13 pages.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Economic Impact Modeling Solutions. www.implan.com.

Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. 2008. Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement and Control of Air Contaminants. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Jackson, MS. 65 pages.

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, www.mdeq.state.ms.us.

Mississippi Department of Transportation. Mississippi Unified Long Range Transportation Infastructure Plan, Phase I and II. http://www.gomdot.com/Divisions/IntermodalPlanning/Resources/Programs/ MultiPlan/Home.aspx.

Mississippi Energy and Industrial Construction Consortium. 2009. Green Energy in Mississippi. www. meicc.com. 9 pages.

Mississippi Forestry Commission. www.mfc.state.ms.us

Mississippi Forest Stewardship Program Brochure http://www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Mgt/FS/Stewardship%20 Brochure.pdf

Mississippi Forest Stewardship Program State Plan http://www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Mgt/FS/State_ Stewardship_Plan_Final_08.pdf

Mississippi Forestry Association. 2005. Mississippi Forestry Facts. MFA, Jackson, Mississippi, 2 pages.

Mississippi Forestry Commission. 2008. Mississippi Forest Stewardship Program State Plan: Natural Resource Management for Mississippi Landowners. 2009 - 2013. 27 pages.

Mississippi Forestry Commission. 2007 - 2009. County Wildfire Protection Plan Map.

Mississippi Forestry Commission. 2007. Managing Your Forest Acreage for Both Timber and Wildlife. MFC Publication 88. 5 pages.

Mississippi Forestry Commission. 2009. A Year of Productivity Annual Report.16 pages.

Mississippi Forestry Commission. 2008. Voluntary Smoke Management Guidelines. Jackson, MS, 38 pages.

Mississippi Hardwood Notes. 2005. Mississippi Forestry Commission

Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning. 2002. Mississippi Population Projections, 2005, 2010, 2015. Center for Policy, Research and Planning, IHL. 253 pages.

Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory. www.mifi.ms.gov

Mississippi Land Trust, www.misslandtrust.org.

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2001. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks, Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Museum of Natural Science, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks. Jackson, Mississippi, 2 pages.

Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2005. Mississippi’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Mississippi Museum of Natural 155 Science, Jackson, Mississippi.

Mississippi State University Cooperative Extension Service. www.msucares.com

Mississippi State University Extension Service. 2009 Harvest of Forest Products Forest Economics. James E. Henderson, Assistant Extension Professor.

Mississippi State University Forest and Wildlife Research Center. Landowner involvement and attitudes: Fee access wildlife and fisheries recreation. Munn, I.A., A. Hussain, J.D. Byrd, S.C. Grado, J.C. Jones, W.D. Jones, E.K. Loden, J.E. Miller, B.C. West. 2007. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Research Bulletin FO332, Mississippi State University. 30 pages.

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [webapplication]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

National Forest Legacy Program Guidelines http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/library/flp_guidelines.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management: The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). www. coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/land.

National Strategy for Invasive Species Management http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/ Final_National_Strategy_100804.pdf.

Noss, Reed F., and Robert L. Peters. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on America’s Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife. Washington, D.C. Defenders of Wildlife.

Owen, Wayne R. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Southern Native Plant Communities in Historical Times. 2002.

Oswalt, Sonja N.; Johnson, Tony G.; Coulston, John W.; Oswalt, Christopher M. 2009. Mississippi’s Forests, 2006. Resource. Bull. SRS-147. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 78 pages.

Pennak, Robert W. 1964. Collegiate Dictionary of Zoology. The Ronald Press, New York. 566 pages.

Petty, David E. 2003. Mississippi Soil Surveys. Mississippi State Cooperative Extension Service. www. msucares.com

Smith, R.K., P.L. Freeman, J.V. Higgins, K.S. Wheaton, T.W. Fitzhugh, K.J. Ernstrom, A.A. Das. Priority Areas for Freshwater Conservation Action: A Biodiversity Assessment of the Southeastern United States. The Nature Conservancy. 2002.

Southern Group of State Foresters. 2008. Fire in the South 2. www.southernwildfirerisk.com/reports/ FireInTheSouth2.pdf

Southern Group of State Foresters. 2010. Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment. http://www. southernwildfirerisk.com/

Special Forest Stewardship Edition. Minority Landowner. Summer 2009, Volume IV Number III. 22 pages.

State of Mississippi. Urban and Community Forestry Strategic Action Plan. 2005-2010.

Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy. 2010. http://www.visitmyforest.org/

The Nature Conservancy, May 2002, Conservation Planning in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain.

The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe, 2001. East Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregional Plan.

156 The Nature Conservancy and NatureServe, 2003. The Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain: An Ecoregional Assessment.

The Bugwood Network. http://www.bugwood.org/pfire/

National Woodlands. The Voice of Family Forest Landowners, Growing half of America’s wood, forest, water and wildlife. Autumn 2009. 27 pages.

National Woodland Owners Association. The Top Ten Forestry Issues for 2009.

USDA Farm Bill. Woodland Owner Brochure. 2008. 8 pages.

USDA Forest Service. Forest Legacy Program 5-Year Strategic Direction. December 2005. 11 pages.

USDA Forest Service. Compass. September 2009, Issue 14, 38 pages.

USDA Forest Service. Compass February 2010, Issue 15, 40 pages.

USDA Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service-An Overview. www.fs.fed.us

USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Land and Resource Management Plan. National Forests in Mississippi. (Reprint: October 2000) 451 pages.

USDA Forest Service. Southern Forest Land Assessment. October 2008. 131 pages.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. National Agroforestry Center. Working Trees for Water Quality. U.S. Forest Service. www.unl.edu/nac.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 123 pages.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

Wear, David. 2005. Rapid Changes in Forest Ownership Increase Fragmentation. Compass, Fall 2005. p. 8-9.

Wear, David, Douglas R. Carter, Jeffrey Prestemon. The US South’s Timber Sector in 2005: A prospective analysis of recent change. 2005. USDA Forest Service, NC. 59 pages.

Wear, David N., John G. Greis. The Southern Forest Resource Assessment, Summary Report. October 2002. Southern Research Station, NC. 103 pages.

White, Eric M.; Alig, Ralph J.; Stein, Susan M.; Mahal, Lisa G.; Theobald, David M. 2009. A sensitivity analysis of “Forests on the Edge: Housing Development on America’s Private Forests.” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-792. Portland, World Resources Institute, 2010. Southern Forests for the future. 73 pages. www.barkbeetle.com www.bugwood.org www.cogongrass.org www.dontmovefirewood.org www.emeraldashborer.org

157 IX. Acronyms

ACUB ...... Army Compatible Use Buffer Program FEPP ...... Federal Excess Personal Property AFPA ...... American Forest & Paper Association FFP ...... Firefighter Program AI&DCR . Annual Insect & Disease Conditions Reporting FHM ...... Forest Health Monitoring Process FHP ...... Forest Health Protection ALB ...... Asian Longhorned Beetle FIA ...... Forest Inventory and ANC ...... Alaska Native Corporations Analysis ...... AON ...... Assessment of Need FLA ...... Forest Legacy Area ASU ...... Alcorn State University FLIS ...... Forest Legacy Information System ATFS ...... American Tree Farm System® FLP ...... Forest Legacy Program AWSR...... Annual Wildfire Summary Report FSA ...... Farm Services Agency BMP ...... Best Management Practice FSC ...... Forest Stewardship Council BTU ...... British Thermal Unit FSP ...... Forest Stewardship Program ccf ...... Hundred cubic feet FSCC ...... Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee CARS ...... Communities at Risk FSMP ...... Forest Stewardship Management Plan CEA ...... Cooperative Equipment Agreement FRDP ...... Forest Resource Development Program CFA ...... County Forestry Association GIS ...... Geographic Information System CFC ...... County Fire Coordinator GSA ...... General Services Administration CFAA ...... Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act HFRP ...... Healthy Forest Reserve Program CFHP ...... Cooperative Forest Health Program HMGP ...... Hazard Mitigation Grant Program CFPF ...... Community Fire Protection Funds HMT’s ...... Hazard Mitigation Technicians CFPM ...... Cooperative Fire Program Manager HWA ...... Hemlock Woolly Adelgid CFPP ...... Cooperative Fire Protection Program HUC ...... Hydrologic Unit Code CFS ...... Certified Forest Stewards IAFC ...... International Association of Fire Chiefs CPA ...... Conservation Priority Area IMT ...... Incident Management Teams CRP ...... Conservation Reserve Program ISM ...... Invasive Species Management CREP . . . . Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program LIP ...... Landowner Incentive Program CWM . . . . . Cooperative Weed Management Program LRFP ...... Limited Resource Farmer Program CWPP ...... Community Wildfire Protection Plan LTMCP . . . Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal Plain CWCS . . . . Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy MAPDD ...... Mississippi Association of Planning and Development Districts DoD ...... Department of Defense MARIS . . . Mississippi Automated Resource Information EAB ...... Emerald Ash Borer System EDRR ...... Early Detection and Rapid Response MCF ...... thousand cubic feet EOY ...... End-of-Year Accomplishment Reports MCWMA Mississippi Cooperative Weed Management Area ES ...... Extension Service MDA ...... Mississippi Development Authority ESA ...... Endangered Species Act MDAC Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce EQIP ...... Environmental Quality Incentives Program MDEQ . . .Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality FACTA . . . Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act MDOT . . . . .Mississippi Department of Transportation FACTS . . Forest Activity Computerized Tracking System MDWFP .Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and FC/USA ...... Firewise Community/USA Communities Parks FEMA . . . . . Federal Emergency Management Agency MFC ...... Mississippi Forestry Commission MFSC . . . . Mississippi Forest Stewardship Committee 158 MFSP. . . . . Mississippi Forest Stewardship Program RFA ...... Rural Forestry Assistance MGD ...... million gallons per day SBA ...... Small Business Administration MIFI ...... Mississippi Institute for Forest Inventory SGCN . . . . . Species of greatest conservation need MLT ...... Mississippi Land Trust SGSF ...... Southern Group of State Foresters MMNS . . . . . Mississippi Museum of Natural Science S&PF ...... State and Private Forestry MNHP ...... Mississippi Natural Heritage Program SFA ...... State Fire Assistance MPFW . Mississippi Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program SFI ...... Sustainable Forest Initiative® MRT ...... Mississippi River Trust SFM ...... Sustainable forest management MRTC ...... Mississippi Reforestation Tax Credit SFSCC State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee MRV ...... Mississippi River Valley SFSP ...... State Forest Stewardship Plan MSDA ...... Mississippi Department of Agriculture SGCN . . . . . Species of Greatest Conservation Need MSPLT ...... Mississippi Project Learning Tree SOD ...... Sudden oak death MSU ...... Mississippi State University SMZ ...... Streamside Management Zones MSU CFR . . Mississippi State University College of Forest SPB ...... Southern Pine Beetle Resources SSSP . .Mississippi Scenic Streams Stewardship Program MSU FWRC Mississippi State University Forest and Wildlife SWG ...... State Wildlife Grants Program Research Center SWRA ...... Southern Wildfire RiskAssessment MUFC ...... Mississippi Urban Forest Council TCD ...... Thousand canker disease NASF ...... National Association of State Foresters TFP ...... Tree Farm Program NASFM ...... National Association of State Fire Marshals TNC ...... The Nature Conservancy NEMA . . National Emergency Management Association UCF ...... Urban anAd Community Forestry NEPA ...... National Environmental Policy Act ULP ...... Underserved Landowner Program NFHPM ...... National Forest Health Program Managers ...... USDA . . . . . United States Department of Agriculture NFPA ...... National Fire Protection Association USDOI . . . . United States Department of the Interior NFPORS . . . .National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting USEPA . United States Environmental Protection Agency System USFA ...... United States Fire Administration NFP-SFA National Fire Plan, State Fire Assistance Program USFS . . . . . United States Department of Agriculture Forest NFP-VFA . . . . National Fire Plan Volunteer Fire Assistance Service Grant USFWS ...... United States Fish and Wildlife Service NGO ...... Non-governmental organization VFA ...... Volunteer Fire Assistance Program NIPF ...... Nonindustrial Private Forest VFD’s ...... Volunteer Fire Departments NMKC ...... North Mississippi Kudzu Coalition WAT ...... Wetlands America Trust NNI ...... Non-native invasive WFI ...... Wildland Fire Investigators NNIP ...... Non-native invasive plants WFHF ...... Wildland Fire, Hazardous Fuels NPS ...... National Park Service WHDP ...... Wildlife Habitat Development Plan NRCS . . . . .Natural Resources Conservation Service WHIP ...... Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program NTFP ...... Non-timber forest WMA ...... Wildlife Management Area products ...... WRC ...... Wolf River Conservancy PMAS . Performance Management Accountability System WRCS ...... Wolf River Conservation Society PPE ...... Personal Protection Equipment WRP ...... Wetlands Reserve Program RAWS ...... Remote Automated Weather Station WRPO . . . . . Wetlands Reserve Plan of Operations RC&D . . . . Resource Conservation and Development WSFM ...... Western States Fire Managers RCFP . . . . .Rural Community Fire Protection Program WUI ...... Wildland-Urban Interface RCWs ...... Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers WUIWT ...... Wildland/Urban Interface Working Team REC ...... Roscommon Equipment Center

159 Appendix A

MS Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy Development Process

1. Process Overview and organizations, businesses and educational The State Forester and Mississippi Forest institutions were invited by staff leaders to participate Stewardship Coordinating Committee (FSCC) in several working sessions held throughout 2009 started the assessment process by first adopting and 2010 on each issue area. Several members the recommendations of the Natural Resources of the FSCC are also active members of the Planning Conference Report entitled the Future of USDA State Technical Committee and were active Mississippi’s Natural Resources -- an issue-based participants in the development and review of guidance document developed by Mississippi this document, and participated in stakeholder State University’s College of Forest Resources groups for the key issues described herein. during a planning conference of major stakeholders The MFC also initiated the two public surveys in convened in May 2006. This comprehensive report 2009 mentioned above to solicit opinions on priority clearly identified, with the assistance of a diverse resource issue and concerns, and used those group of participants, the emerging and established results to further define forest resource concerns challenges and opportunities for Mississippi’s forest and areas of importance to Mississippians. resources, several broad key issues that need to be Drafts of the assessment and strategy documents addressed and a draft set of overarching response were distributed to stakeholders for review in the strategies. This conference and the resulting spring of 2010 prior to submission to the US Forest published report provided the framework for the Service and were posted on the MFC website with development of Mississippi’s Forest Resource an invitation for review and comment via statewide Assessment and Forest Resource Strategy. press releases. Comments were received, reviewed Two public surveys (an on-line survey and mail) and incorporated into the final documented, survey were developed to solicit additional where appropriate. US Forest Service, Southern input on the draft set of issues defined in the comments on the draft were incorporated into the Future of Mississippi’s Natural Resources report. final document prior to submission in June, 2010. Survey results and highlights in Appendix C. 3. Primary Data Sources MFC staff in conjunction with the members of the National guidance for the development of Statewide FSCC identified potential stakeholders for each Forest Assessments and Strategies encouraged issue and assigned a staff leader to work with states to draw from existing data sources and layers stakeholders in developing a narrative for each including those provided by the National Assessment of the issues in the conference that would also or developed from other planning documents such meet the Farm Bill requirements for the statewide as the 2006 Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife assessment. Two staff leaders, Patrick Glass (former Conservation Strategy (CWCS), the Mississippi MFC employee) and Tympel Blansett coordinated Forest Legacy Assessment of Need (approved the overall effort with mapping assistance by in 2007), the Southern Forestland Assessment Randal Romedy and editing assistance by Kent and most recent Forest Inventory and Analysis Grizzard. A contract writer, Elizabeth Barber, was (Mississippi Forests, 2006) as well as the Southern enlisted to assist in the compilation of the reports. Wildfire Risk Assessment. Key stakeholder From the assessment, a set of overall statewide issues were initially identified using Future of strategies was developed by the staff leaders, as the MFC Assessment and Strategy Working Mississippi’s Natural Resources report and were Group, in conjunction with several stakeholders. prioritized using data from two public surveys conducted by MFC in 2009 (discussed above). 2. Public and Partner Involvement A complete list of references used in the development The FSCC provided oversight of the assessment and of this document is included in the body of the report. strategy development process and members actively 4. Integration of Other Plans participated in regular meetings held to discuss and Assessments and draft components for each key issue area. In addition to FSCC members, other representatives MFC relied heavily on information from two recently of resource and economic development agencies, approved federal conservation plans to develop this including USFS and USFWS personnel in Mississippi Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources and 160 Forest Resource Strategy. The 2005 Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Alan Holditch, NRCS Amanda Gaskin, RC & D Council, MS Coastal Plains (CWCS) developed by the Mississippi Department Benny Graves, MDAC, Bureau of Plant Industry of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks was used to help Cathy Shropshire, MWF describe the condition of natural forest communities Charles Knight, MDWFP, MS Museum of Natural Science in the state. At the time of this report, the MDWFP Charlie Cornish, Plum Creek was in the process of updating some elements Chris Bryan, MDOT of the CWCS such as the wildlife species of Daryl Jones, MSU concern and threats to natural communities. Dave Thompson, MDOT Assessment writers met with the MDWFP staff in David Jones, MSU Forest Products Extension Deborah Gaddis, MSU Extension Forestry the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program in early Don Bales, MSU Extension Forestry 2010 to seek input and obtain draft updates of Donna Yowell, MUFC species and threats. Because MDWFP has not Evan Nebeker, retired entomologist completed their updates, the draft information was Frances Lewis, Weyerhaeuser Company consulted, but the approved 2005 report was used. George Byrd, MFC Gerry Farmer, MFC A link to the current CWCS is in Appendix B. Glenn Hughes, MSU Extension Forestry The Mississippi CWCS provided the foundation for Greg Shows, MS Farm Bureau Federation Gwendolyn Boyd, Alcorn State University the development of new Mississippi Forest Legacy Harold Anderson, MS PLT Program Assessment of Need (FLP AON) which was Harry Fulton, MDAC, Bureau of Plant Industry approved in 2007. This document also describes Henry Folmar, MDEQ the condition of the state’s forest resources and uses James Cummins, MFWF that information to derive three areas of Mississippi James Henderson, MSU Extension Forestry James Meeker, USDA Forest Service that are targets for the new Forest Legacy Program James Shepard, MSU because of the threat of conversion to non-forest use. Jeanne Jones, MSU A link to the AON is also included in Appendix B. Jeff Clark, MDMR John Gruchy, MDWFP MFC also enlisted the help of the writer, Elizabeth Jeff Hatten, MSU Rooks-Barber, who developed the approved Jeff Head, USDA APHIS CWCS and the FLP AON plans to also compile this Jim Copeland, Meridian Naval Air Station assessment and strategy. The state coordinator Joe Doss, MS RC&D SE Area John Byrd, MSU for the FLP was also actively involved in writing John Madsen, MSU the assessment and strategy, and served on the John Riggins, MSU MFC Assessment and Strategy Working Group. Kelly McMullen, MS Secretary of State Kenneth Calcote, MDAC To date Community Wildfire Protection Kit Hart, Plum Creek Plans that have been developed for 34 Larry Barr, Mississippi Department of Mississippi counties. Recommendations Insurance (State Fire Coordinator) Mark Saucier, TNC from those plans were incorporated into the Melinda Lyman, TNC key issue discussion and draft strategies. Mike Beiser, MDEQ 5. List of Preparers Mike Dueitt, USFS Patrick Lemoyne, MFA This document was produced with contributions Patty Rogers, RC & D Council from many staff from the MFC Assessment and Randy Browning, USFWS Robby Toombs, Resource Management Inc. Strategy Working Group including Tympel Blansett, Ron Killebrew, MDEQ Randy Chapin, Dennis Dauterive, Sandra Ford, Russ Walsh, MDWFP Bruce Frasier, Patrick Glass, Brant Godbold, Ruth Cook, Molpus Woodlands Group Kent Grizzard, Mark Hamilton, Richard McInnis, Saul Petty, USFS Rick Olson, Randal Romedy, Blake Thomas and Scott Edwards, MDWFP Scott Wright, MSU Wayne Tucker with oversight from the Mississippi Sherry Surrette, MDWFP, MS Museum Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee and of Natural Science with input from many stakeholder organizations, Steve Butler, Timber Corp. Steve Grado, MSU institutions, businesses, agencies and individuals. Tom Darden The following individuals and organizations Tom Monaghan, MSU provided assistance, information, comments, Tony Wilder, USFWS USDA Forest Service, Southern Region guidance and technical support in the development Victor Maddox, MSU of the Assessment and Strategies. 161 Appendix B Detailed Program Guidance

The following are links to current guidance documents that include additional detail and recommendations on implementation of strategies for specific program and issue areas discussed in Mississippi’s Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource Strategy.

1. Forest Protection – Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment www.southernwildfirerisk.com

2. Mississippi Forest Legacy Program – Assessment of Need 2007-2012 http://www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Mgt/FL/Forest%20Legacy%20AON-1.pdf http://www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Mgt/FL/Forest%20Legacy%20AON-2.pdf

3. Mississippi Forest Stewardship Plan, 2008 http://www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Mgt/FS/State_Stewardship_Plan_Final_08.pdf

4. Urban and Community Forestry – Mississippi Urban and Community Forestry Management Manual http://www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Urban/MS%20Urban%20Community%20Forestry%20Management%20Manual-07.pdf

5. Enabling Legislation, 2007 Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act Authority http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/Legislation/110/Forestry_TitleVIII.pdf http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/redesign/redesign-authorities.pdf

162 Appendix C Mississippi Forest Assessment Public Survey Results

Two statewide public surveys (mail and online) were conducted for the Mississippi Assessment of Forest Resources effort to solicit additional input on the draft set of issues defined in the Future of Mississippi’s Natural Resources report in early 2009. A copy of both surveys is included in this Appendix.

Participants of both surveys were ask to evaluate the importance of the key issues identified for possible inclusion in the Assessment Those issues evaluated in the surveys were: Sustainable Resources, Resource Utilization, Landownership Policies, Invasive Species, Renewable Energy and Stewardship Education. Participants were also given a list of Other Issues from which to choose which issue was important to them. Other Issues mentioned were: Stewardship of Resources, Wildfire, Prescribed Burning, Rural Health, Urban Health, Climate, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Management.

In addition to importance of key issues, participants provided demographic information as well. Demographic data collected included annual income, ownership size, education, state/ county location. A total of 837 people participated in both surveys. There were 528 participants in the online survey and 309 from the paper survey. Participants in both surveys were from seventy- six (76) counties.

163 Participants from each survey were summarized by three ownership classes, traditional, underserved, and those who owned no forestland. Traditional ownership class includes those participants whose income is greater than $40,000 annually and owns more than ten acres. This group has long been eligible and able to participate in State and Federal cost-share assistance. Underserved landowners are those whose incomes are less than $40,000 and/or own less than ten acres of forestland. This group has historically been ineligible due to size of ownership or unable due to lack of capital. The third group was made up of those who own no forestland. The data was summarized for each ownership class group by survey and expressed as a percent of number of responses.

Ninety-percent of the participants believe that each issue in the assessment was important or very important. The responses for the Other Issue category varied between surveys. In the web survey Prescribed Burning was the issue which had the highest percentage for each ownership class followed by Stewardship from traditional owners, and Wildfire by underserved and no ownership classes. Climate issue was very close in all ownership classes.

There were more variations in the paper survey. Wildfire and Stewardship received the highest percentage followed by underserved landowners. Traditional landowners viewed prescribed burning, wildfire and stewardship as priorities. The Climate Change issue received the same percentage by all ownership classes.

The following are copies of the survey results.

164 Mississippi Forestry Commission 301 North Lamar Street, Suite 300 · Jackson, Mississippi 39201

Phone: (601) 359-1386 · Fax: (601) 359-1349 · www.mfc.state.ms.us

March 16, 2009

Dear Friend of Forestry: The forests of Mississippi provide many benefits that are enjoyed by all citizens of the Magnolia State. Although Mississippi’s forests are abundant and diverse, the health, productivity, and future of Mississippi’s forests and related resources are being impacted by a wide variety of influences. In order to ensure the future enjoyment of forest-based benefits, the Forestry Commission is seeking input from all stakeholders in regard to the issues affecting the state’s forests and natural resources. Please click on this link—Mississippi’s Forest Assessment Survey—to participate in a short on-line survey about the issues affecting forestry in Mississippi. It only takes a few minutes. Your input is greatly appreciated and will be included as part of the Mississippi Forest Assessment and Resource Strategy—a statewide effort addressing the future of Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources. The survey will be available through April 3. Because of the importance of gathering input from as many stakeholders as possible, we have implemented a wide-spread distribution effort of the survey. It is possible that you might receive this email more than once. If this happens, I apologize for the inconvenience. More information about Mississippi’s Forest Assessment and Resource Strategy can be found on our Web site: www.mfc.state.ms.us. Again, thank you for your participation in this very important effort. Sincerely,

Charlie Morgan State Forester Mississippi Forestry Commission

Caring for the Trees and Forests of Mississippi Web Survey Results

Mississippi Forest Resource Assessment Survey

1. Issue 1: Sustainable Development Sustaining Mississippi’s natural resources, while balancing economic development with quality of life, poses huge challenges to resource managers and economic developers. Critical resource decisions revolve around sustainability of forest products industries, water quality and quantity, urban development, landscape planning, and the desired states of Mississippi’s forests and wildlife. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 70.7% 371

Important 25.3% 133

Not Very Important 2.3% 12

Don't Know 1.7% 9

answered question 525

skipped question 3

2. Issue 2: Resource Utilization Fully utilizing Mississippi’s abundant forest resource will require the development of new and diverse markets for forest products, in addition to expanding existing markets for wood fiber, wildlife and outdoor recreation, ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, and all other natural resource products. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 74.2% 386

Important 23.1% 120

Not Very Important 2.3% 12

Don't Know 0.4% 2

answered question 520

skipped question 8

166 Page 1 3. Issue 3: Land Ownership Policies Seventy-six percent of Mississippi’s forestland is in private ownership. Maintaining a productive and sustainable future for Mississippi’s forests and other natural resources may very well be dependant on the development of a natural resource policy structured to promote and maintain private ownership. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 67.6% 351

Important 26.8% 139

Not Very Important 5.0% 26

Don't Know 0.6% 3

answered question 519

skipped question 9

4. Issue 4: Invasive Species The spread of non-native invasive species greatly impacts the productivity of the forest resource and creates significant challenges for the natural resource manager and landowner. Invasive species and tree damaging insects and pathogens pose a serious threat to the overall health of Mississippi’s forest resource. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 71.0% 369

Important 26.3% 137

Not Very Important 2.1% 11

Don't Know 0.6% 3

answered question 520

skipped question 8

Page 2

167 5. Issue 5: Renewable Energy With an abundance of readily available biomass material, there is great potential for the development of energy from renewable natural resources in Mississippi. Effective utilization of the biomass resource and continued advancement in biofuel technology will help Mississippi address present and future energy challenges. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 56.4% 287

Important 33.8% 172

Not Very Important 7.7% 39

Don't Know 2.2% 11

answered question 509

skipped question 19

6. Issue 6: Stewardship Education Providing effective natural resource education is vital to raising the level of environmental awareness in both youth and adults. At a young age, learning the importance of the forest and related natural resources can lead to the pursuit of a career in natural resources. Also, a better understanding of the wise use and stewardship of natural resources leads to policy makers and other individuals making sound, informed decisions in regard to natural resource public policy issues affecting the economic and ecological values of Mississippi’s forest resource. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 64.4% 327

Important 31.1% 158

Not Very Important 3.9% 20

Don't Know 0.6% 3

answered question 508

skipped question 20

Page 3

168 7. Other Issues In addition to the issues presented in this survey, there may be other issues you believe are important to the forests and natural resources of Mississippi. Please review the additional issues listed below and identify any other issues you think should be addressed in the Mississippi Forest Assessment and Resource Strategy.

Response Response

Percent Count

Land Stewardship 55.7% 262

Wildfire 49.8% 234

Prescribed Burning 73.6% 346

Rural Forest Health 41.1% 193

Urban Forest Health 24.9% 117

Climate Change 18.3% 86

Biodiversity 34.9% 164

Ecosystem 44.0% 207 Restoration/Rehabilitation

Other (please specify) 80

answered question 470

skipped question 58

Page 4

169 8. In which state do you currently live?

Response Response

Percent Count

Alabama 6.0% 30

Alaska 0.0% 0

Arizona 0.0% 0

Arkansas 0.8% 4

California 0.0% 0

Colorado 0.0% 0

Connecticut 0.0% 0

Delaware 0.0% 0

Florida 0.4% 2

Georgia 0.6% 3

Hawaii 0.0% 0

Idaho 0.0% 0

Illinois 0.0% 0

Indiana 0.0% 0

Iowa 0.0% 0

Kansas 0.0% 0

Kentucky 0.2% 1

Louisiana 2.4% 12

Maine 0.0% 0

Maryland 0.2% 1

Massachusetts 0.0% 0

Michigan 0.0% 0

Minnesota 0.2% 1

Mississippi 86.8% 434

Missouri 0.0% 0

Page 5

170 Montana 0.0% 0

Nebraska 0.0% 0

Nevada 0.0% 0

New Hampshire 0.0% 0

New Jersey 0.2% 1

New Mexico 0.0% 0

New York 0.0% 0

North Carolina 0.4% 2

North Dakota 0.0% 0

Ohio 0.0% 0

Oklahoma 0.2% 1

Oregon 0.0% 0

Pennsylvania 0.0% 0

Rhode Island 0.0% 0

South Carolina 0.2% 1

South Dakota 0.0% 0

Tennessee 1.0% 5

Texas 0.4% 2

Utah 0.0% 0

Vermont 0.0% 0

Virginia 0.0% 0

Washington 0.0% 0

West Virginia 0.0% 0

Wisconsin 0.0% 0

Wyoming 0.0% 0

answered question 500

skipped question 28

Page 6

171 9. Do you own land in Mississippi?

Response Response

Percent Count

1-10 Acres 29.7% 147

11-20 Acres 5.3% 26

21-50 Acres 8.7% 43

51-100 Acres 10.5% 52

101-500 Acres 14.9% 74

More than 500 Acres 7.5% 37

No 23.4% 116

answered question 495

skipped question 33

10. The majority of your land ownership is in which county?

Response Response

Percent Count

Adams 1.0% 4

Alcorn 1.5% 6

Amite 1.0% 4

Attala 0.8% 3

Benton 0.5% 2

Bolivar 0.0% 0

Calhoun 0.5% 2

Carroll 0.5% 2

Chickasaw 0.8% 3

Choctaw 1.5% 6

Claiborne 1.8% 7

Clarke 0.3% 1

Clay 0.3% 1

Page 7

172 Coahoma 0.0% 0

Copiah 1.3% 5

Covington 1.5% 6

DeSoto 0.0% 0

Forrest 1.3% 5

Franklin 0.8% 3

George 0.3% 1

Greene 1.5% 6

Grenada 1.5% 6

Hancock 1.5% 6

Harrison 3.1% 12

Hinds 0.8% 3

Holmes 0.5% 2

Humphreys 0.3% 1

Issaquena 0.8% 3

Itawamba 2.5% 10

Jackson 1.8% 7

Jasper 1.8% 7

Jefferson 0.8% 3

Jefferson Davis 0.8% 3

Jones 1.3% 5

Kemper 1.5% 6

Lafayette 2.5% 10

Lamar 3.3% 13

Lauderdale 1.8% 7

Lawrence 0.8% 3

Leake 0.5% 2

Lee 0.8% 3

Page 8

173 Leflore 0.0% 0

Lincoln 2.0% 8

Lowndes 2.0% 8

Madison 2.8% 11

Marion 0.8% 3

Marshall 0.3% 1

Monroe 1.0% 4

Montgomery 1.5% 6

Neshoba 2.0% 8

Newton 1.5% 6

Noxubee 2.0% 8

Oktibbeha 6.4% 25

Panola 0.8% 3

Pearl River 1.3% 5

Perry 0.3% 1

Pike 1.0% 4

Pontotoc 0.5% 2

Prentiss 0.8% 3

Quitman 0.0% 0

Rankin 2.8% 11

Scott 1.0% 4

Sharkey 0.3% 1

Simpson 1.3% 5

Smith 1.5% 6

Stone 2.0% 8

Sunflower 0.3% 1

Tallahatchie 0.8% 3

Tate 0.8% 3

Page 9

174 Tippah 0.0% 0

Tishomingo 0.0% 0

Tunica 0.0% 0

Union 0.0% 0

Walthall 0.3% 1

Warren 8.2% 24

Washington 0.7% 2

Wayne 0.0% 0

Webster 0.0% 0

Wilkinson 0.7% 2

Winston 0.0% 0

Yalobusha 0.0% 0

Yazoo 1.4% 4

answered question 291

skipped question 18

11. How much of your land is forested?

Response Response

Percent Count

1-10 Acres 58.3% 180

11-20 Acres 20.7% 64

21-50 Acres 8.7% 27

51-100 Acres 2.9% 9

101-500 Acres 1.0% 3

More than 500 Acres 0.0% 0

None 8.4% 26

answered question 309

skipped question 0

Page 10

175 12. Do you actively manage your forestland for any of the following? (Select all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

Timber Production 68.6% 242

Water Quality 36.8% 130

Wildlife 78.5% 277

Air Quality 15.0% 53

Aesthetics 50.4% 178

Stewardship Education 9.3% 33

Recreation 57.2% 202

Habitat Restoration 23.5% 83

Other (please specify) 19

answered question 353

skipped question 175

Page 11

176 13. What is your total annual household income, including all earners in your household?

Response Response

Percent Count

Less than $10,000 19.3% 59

$10,000 to $19,999 26.5% 81

$20,000 to $29,999 19.0% 58

$30,000 to $39,999 6.5% 20

$40,000 to $49,999 10.5% 32

$50,000 to $59,999 8.5% 26

$60,000 to $69,999 2.9% 9

$70,000 to $79,999 1.3% 4

$80,000 to $89,999 1.0% 3

$90,000 to $99,999 2.6% 8

$100,000 to $149,999 1.0% 3

$150,000 or greater 1.0% 3

answered question 306

skipped question 3

Page 12

177 14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Response Response

Percent Count

High School / GED 7.3% 36

2 – Year College Degree 10.4% 51 (Associates)

4 – Year College Degree 53.9% 264 (Bachelors)

Master’s Degree 20.4% 100

Doctoral Degree 6.9% 34

Professional Degree (MD, JD, EdD) 1.0% 5

answered question 490

skipped question 38

15. Do you live in an Urban or Rural Area?

Response Response

Percent Count

Urban 27.3% 135

Rual 56.5% 279

Suburban 16.2% 80

answered question 494

skipped question 34

Page 13

178 16. Which of the following best describes your primary area of employment?

Response Response

Percent Count

Agriculture / Farming 2.0% 10

Forestry / Wildlife 60.4% 296

Education / Teaching 5.9% 29

Finance / Banking / Insurance 1.2% 6

Construction / Manufacturing 1.6% 8

Government / Public Administration 12.4% 61

Hotel / Restaurant / Tourism 0.4% 2

Legal Services 0.6% 3

Computer Technology / Information 0.6% 3 Management

Real Estate / Marketing 0.8% 4

Telecommunications 0.4% 2

Transportation / Warehousing 0.8% 4

Scientific / Technical Services 2.0% 10

Medical / Healthcare 1.2% 6

Wholesale / Retail Sales 1.0% 5

Religion 0.4% 2

Military 0.0% 0

Retired 6.9% 34

Homemaker 0.6% 3

Student 0.4% 2

answered question 490

skipped question 38

Page 14

179 17. What is your age?

Response Response

Percent Count

Less than 18 0.0% 0

18-25 1.4% 7

26-30 5.3% 26

31-40 22.7% 111

41-50 21.8% 107

51-60 34.5% 169

61 or older 14.3% 70

answered question 490

skipped question 38

Page 15

180 Paper Survey Results

Entry 2 of Mississippi Forest Resource Assessment Survey

1. Issue 1: Sustainable Development Sustaining Mississippi’s natural resources, while balancing economic development with quality of life, poses huge challenges to resource managers and economic developers. Critical resource decisions revolve around sustainability of forest products industries, water quality and quantity, urban development, landscape planning, and the desired states of Mississippi’s forests and wildlife. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 68.9% 213

Important 31.1% 96

Not Very Important 0.0% 0

Don't Know 0.0% 0

answered question 309

skipped question 0

2. Issue 2: Resource Utilization Fully utilizing Mississippi’s abundant forest resource will require the development of new and diverse markets for forest products, in addition to expanding existing markets for wood fiber, wildlife and outdoor recreation, ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, and all other natural resource products. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 62.7% 193

Important 36.0% 111

Not Very Important 0.6% 2

Don't Know 0.6% 2

answered question 308

skipped question 1

Page 1 181 3. Issue 3: Land Ownership Policies Seventy-six percent of Mississippi’s forestland is in private ownership. Maintaining a productive and sustainable future for Mississippi’s forests and other natural resources may very well be dependant on the development of a natural resource policy structured to promote and maintain private ownership. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 62.5% 193

Important 36.9% 114

Not Very Important 0.3% 1

Don't Know 0.3% 1

answered question 309

skipped question 0

4. Issue 4: Invasive Species The spread of non-native invasive species greatly impacts the productivity of the forest resource and creates significant challenges for the natural resource manager and landowner. Invasive species and tree damaging insects and pathogens pose a serious threat to the overall health of Mississippi’s forest resource. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 61.4% 189

Important 36.7% 113

Not Very Important 0.6% 2

Don't Know 1.3% 4

answered question 308

skipped question 1

Page 2

182 5. Issue 5: Renewable Energy With an abundance of readily available biomass material, there is great potential for the development of energy from renewable natural resources in Mississippi. Effective utilization of the biomass resource and continued advancement in biofuel technology will help Mississippi address present and future energy challenges. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 79.3% 245

Important 20.1% 62

Not Very Important 0.3% 1

Don't Know 0.3% 1

answered question 309

skipped question 0

6. Issue 6: Stewardship Education Providing effective natural resource education is vital to raising the level of environmental awareness in both youth and adults. At a young age, learning the importance of the forest and related natural resources can lead to the pursuit of a career in natural resources. Also, a better understanding of the wise use and stewardship of natural resources leads to policy makers and other individuals making sound, informed decisions in regard to natural resource public policy issues affecting the economic and ecological values of Mississippi’s forest resource. How important to you is this issue in regard to Mississippi’s forests and related natural resources?

Response Response

Percent Count

Very Important 78.7% 240

Important 20.7% 63

Not Very Important 0.0% 0

Don't Know 0.7% 2

answered question 305

skipped question 4

Page 3

183 7. Other Issues In addition to the issues presented in this survey, there may be other issues you believe are important to the forests and natural resources of Mississippi. Please review the additional issues listed below and identify any other issues you think should be addressed in the Mississippi Forest Assessment and Resource Strategy.

Response Response

Percent Count

Land Stewardship 87.1% 264

Wildfire 86.1% 261

Prescribed Burning 72.6% 220

Rural Forest Health 57.8% 175

Urban Forest Health 11.6% 35

Climate Change 79.9% 242

Biodiversity 72.6% 220

Ecosystem 67.7% 205 Restoration/Rehabilitation

Other (please specify) 5

answered question 303

skipped question 6

Page 4

184 8. In which state do you currently live?

Response Response

Percent Count

Alabama 0.0% 0

Alaska 0.0% 0

Arizona 0.0% 0

Arkansas 0.0% 0

California 0.0% 0

Colorado 0.0% 0

Connecticut 0.0% 0

Delaware 0.0% 0

Florida 0.0% 0

Georgia 0.0% 0

Hawaii 0.0% 0

Idaho 0.0% 0

Illinois 0.0% 0

Indiana 0.0% 0

Iowa 0.0% 0

Kansas 0.0% 0

Kentucky 0.0% 0

Louisiana 0.0% 0

Maine 0.0% 0

Maryland 0.0% 0

Massachusetts 0.0% 0

Michigan 0.0% 0

Minnesota 1.3% 4

Mississippi 98.7% 305

Missouri 0.0% 0

Page 5

185 Montana 0.0% 0

Nebraska 0.0% 0

Nevada 0.0% 0

New Hampshire 0.0% 0

New Jersey 0.0% 0

New Mexico 0.0% 0

New York 0.0% 0

North Carolina 0.0% 0

North Dakota 0.0% 0

Ohio 0.0% 0

Oklahoma 0.0% 0

Oregon 0.0% 0

Pennsylvania 0.0% 0

Rhode Island 0.0% 0

South Carolina 0.0% 0

South Dakota 0.0% 0

Tennessee 0.0% 0

Texas 0.0% 0

Utah 0.0% 0

Vermont 0.0% 0

Virginia 0.0% 0

Washington 0.0% 0

West Virginia 0.0% 0

Wisconsin 0.0% 0

Wyoming 0.0% 0

answered question 309

skipped question 0

Page 6

186 9. Do you own land in Mississippi?

Response Response

Percent Count

1-10 Acres 55.8% 172

11-20 Acres 22.1% 68

21-50 Acres 10.4% 32

51-100 Acres 4.2% 13

101-500 Acres 1.9% 6

More than 500 Acres 0.0% 0

No 5.5% 17

answered question 308

skipped question 1

10. The majority of your land ownership is in which county?

Response Response

Percent Count

Adams 21.3% 62

Alcorn 0.0% 0

Amite 1.0% 3

Attala 0.3% 1

Benton 0.0% 0

Bolivar 0.0% 0

Calhoun 0.0% 0

Carroll 0.0% 0

Chickasaw 0.0% 0

Choctaw 0.0% 0

Claiborne 16.8% 49

Clarke 0.0% 0

Clay 0.0% 0

Page 7

187 Coahoma 0.0% 0

Copiah 0.0% 0

Covington 0.0% 0

DeSoto 0.0% 0

Forrest 0.3% 1

Franklin 5.2% 15

George 0.0% 0

Greene 0.0% 0

Grenada 0.0% 0

Hancock 0.0% 0

Harrison 0.0% 0

Hinds 4.5% 13

Holmes 2.4% 7

Humphreys 0.7% 2

Issaquena 0.0% 0

Itawamba 0.0% 0

Jackson 0.0% 0

Jasper 0.0% 0

Jefferson 23.4% 68

Jefferson Davis 0.0% 0

Jones 0.0% 0

Kemper 0.0% 0

Lafayette 0.0% 0

Lamar 0.0% 0

Lauderdale 0.3% 1

Lawrence 0.7% 2

Leake 0.0% 0

Lee 0.0% 0

Page 8

188 Leflore 0.0% 0

Lincoln 0.0% 0

Lowndes 0.0% 0

Madison 0.3% 1

Marion 0.0% 0

Marshall 0.0% 0

Monroe 0.0% 0

Montgomery 0.0% 0

Neshoba 0.0% 0

Newton 0.0% 0

Noxubee 0.3% 1

Oktibbeha 0.0% 0

Panola 1.0% 3

Pearl River 0.0% 0

Perry 0.0% 0

Pike 3.8% 11

Pontotoc 0.0% 0

Prentiss 0.0% 0

Quitman 0.0% 0

Rankin 4.8% 14

Scott 0.0% 0

Sharkey 0.0% 0

Simpson 1.0% 3

Smith 0.3% 1

Stone 0.0% 0

Sunflower 0.0% 0

Tallahatchie 0.0% 0

Tate 0.0% 0

Page 9

189 Tippah 0.0% 0

Tishomingo 0.0% 0

Tunica 0.0% 0

Union 0.0% 0

Walthall 0.3% 1

Warren 8.2% 24

Washington 0.7% 2

Wayne 0.0% 0

Webster 0.0% 0

Wilkinson 0.7% 2

Winston 0.0% 0

Yalobusha 0.0% 0

Yazoo 1.4% 4

answered question 291

skipped question 18

11. How much of your land is forested?

Response Response

Percent Count

1-10 Acres 58.3% 180

11-20 Acres 20.7% 64

21-50 Acres 8.7% 27

51-100 Acres 2.9% 9

101-500 Acres 1.0% 3

More than 500 Acres 0.0% 0

None 8.4% 26

answered question 309

skipped question 0

Page 10

190 12. Do you actively manage your forestland for any of the following? (Select all that apply)

Response Response

Percent Count

Timber Production 17.3% 47

Water Quality 22.8% 62

Wildlife 73.2% 199

Air Quality 18.4% 50

Aesthetics 19.5% 53

Stewardship Education 4.4% 12

Recreation 58.8% 160

Habitat Restoration 6.6% 18

Other (please specify) 1

answered question 272

skipped question 37

Page 11

191 13. What is your total annual household income, including all earners in your household?

Response Response

Percent Count

Less than $10,000 19.3% 59

$10,000 to $19,999 26.5% 81

$20,000 to $29,999 19.0% 58

$30,000 to $39,999 6.5% 20

$40,000 to $49,999 10.5% 32

$50,000 to $59,999 8.5% 26

$60,000 to $69,999 2.9% 9

$70,000 to $79,999 1.3% 4

$80,000 to $89,999 1.0% 3

$90,000 to $99,999 2.6% 8

$100,000 to $149,999 1.0% 3

$150,000 or greater 1.0% 3

answered question 306

skipped question 3

Page 12

192 14. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Response Response

Percent Count

High School / GED 35.9% 110

2 – Year College Degree 25.8% 79 (Associates)

4 – Year College Degree 13.4% 41 (Bachelors)

Master’s Degree 19.6% 60

Doctoral Degree 3.9% 12

Professional Degree (MD, JD, EdD) 1.3% 4

answered question 306

skipped question 3

15. Do you live in an Urban or Rural Area?

Response Response

Percent Count

Urban 3.8% 11

Rual 95.2% 279

Suburban 1.0% 3

answered question 293

skipped question 16

Page 13

193 16. Which of the following best describes your primary area of employment?

Response Response

Percent Count

Agriculture / Farming 8.9% 20

Forestry / Wildlife 0.4% 1

Education / Teaching 30.7% 69

Finance / Banking / Insurance 0.9% 2

Construction / Manufacturing 0.0% 0

Government / Public Administration 4.4% 10

Hotel / Restaurant / Tourism 0.0% 0

Legal Services 0.0% 0

Computer Technology / Information 0.0% 0 Management

Real Estate / Marketing 0.9% 2

Telecommunications 0.0% 0

Transportation / Warehousing 0.4% 1

Scientific / Technical Services 0.4% 1

Medical / Healthcare 19.1% 43

Wholesale / Retail Sales 0.0% 0

Religion 0.9% 2

Military 2.7% 6

Retired 27.6% 62

Homemaker 0.9% 2

Student 1.8% 4

answered question 225

skipped question 84

Page 14

194 17. What is your age?

Response Response

Percent Count

Less than 18 0.0% 0

18-25 3.9% 12

26-30 5.8% 18

31-40 26.3% 81

41-50 12.7% 39

51-60 9.4% 29

61 or older 41.9% 129

answered question 308

skipped question 1

Page 15

195

The Mississippi Forestry Commission has provided forest protection and forest management to Mississippi landowners since 1926. Learn more at www.mfc.ms.gov.

The Mississippi Forestry Commission provides equal employment opportunity and services to all individuals regardless of disability, race, age, religion, color, gender, creed, national origin or political affiliation. This institution is an equal opportunity provider.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.