The Conservation Fund
ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE LISTENING SESSION
U.S. Forest Service Role in Conserving Open Space
Development of a National Strategy
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
101 Market Street
Chapel Hill, NC
SUMMARY REPORT
The Conservation Fund
ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE LISTENING SESSION
U.S. Forest Service Role in Conserving Open Space
Development of a National Strategy
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
101 Market Street
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Purpose: To provide feedback on how the Forest Service can most effectively contribute to a
national effort to conserve open space.
10:00 – 10:30
Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose of the Listening Session
Kris Hoellen, The Conservation Fund
Jay West, Meridian Institute
10:30 – 11:00
Overview of Forest Service Holdings, Private Lands and Threats to Open Space Ed Macie, Southern Region Urban Forester
11:00 – 12:30
Private Forestland and the Surrounding Landscape
• Tools: What tools are currently being employed by the Forest Service to
stem land conversion and/or to assist private landowners and
communities? What tools are most effective at mitigating the impacts of
existing and new developments? What other tools or techniques could
be employed or developed?
• Partnerships: Are there new partnerships that should or could be formed
by the Service? Are there existing partnerships that could be improved
using more collaborative approaches?
• Research: Are there areas where additional research is needed, or areas
where research gaps exist?
12:30 – 1:00
LUNCH
1:00 – 2:30
National Forests and Grasslands and the Surrounding Landscape
• Tools: What tools are currently being employed by the Forest Service to
stem land conversion and/or mitigate the impacts of existing and new
developments around National Forests? Are these tools effective? What
other tools or techniques could be employed or developed, particularly to
assist private landowners and communities in maintaining compatible
land uses?
•
•
Partnerships: Are there new partnerships that should or could be formed
by the Service in areas surrounding National Forests are there existing
partnerships that could be improved using more collaborative
approaches?
Research: Are there areas where additional research is needed, or areas
where research gaps exist?
2
2:30 – 2:45
BREAK
2:45 – 3:45
Urban Forests and the Surrounding Landscape
• Tools: What tools are currently being employed by the Forest Service to
stem land conversion and/or mitigate the impacts of existing and new
developments? Are these tools effective? What other tools or
techniques could be employed or developed?
• Partnerships: Are there new partnerships that should or could be formed
by the Service? Are there existing partnerships that could be improved
using more collaborative approaches?
• Research: Are there areas where additional research is needed, or areas
where research gaps exist?
3:45 – 4:30
Wrap-Up
Additional Comments
3
The Conservation Fund
ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE LISTENING SESSION
U.S. Forest Service Role in Conserving Open Space
Development of a National Strategy
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
101 Market Street
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
This document provides a summary of suggestions made by participants in the November 28,
2006, Roundtable Dialogue Listening Session on the U.S. Forest Service’s role in a national
strategy to conserve open space. The listening session was organized by The Conservation Fund
and held at the Conservation Fund’s Chapel Hill office.
The comments below are not consensus recommendations of the participants. Rather, they
capture and summarize individual comments and are intended to document the breadth of
feedback provided by listening session participants.
Overarching Comments on the Forest Service’s Role in Conserving Open Space
•
Development is inevitable, and the South has been reluctant to embrace land use planning.
As the effects of that attitude play out on the landscape, people are starting to talk about
change. An opportunity is emerging to educate the public and elected officials on how
development can be compatible with open space conservation.
•
Elected officials need to better understand the importance of forests and open space to longterm community well being. The public needs to support and champion open space
conservation so that their elected officials will do the same.
•
The public does not understand the issue of losing open space. Many people assume that
large tracts of forest are publicly owned and will be preserved in perpetuity. In the South,
however, most large tracts of forests are privately owned, and the public does not understand
that those tracts are at risk.
•
The public will understand open space conservation as a compelling driver for forest
conservation better than it will the traditional commodity and productivity approach or the
increasingly common greenhouse gas sequestration arguments.
•
There is a need for an organization that would help local groups work together to achieve
common understandings and work toward common goals. The Forest Service could play that
role.
•
There is currently no structural entity within the Forest Service to logically champion open
space conservation. Establishing a Deputy Chief for Open Space or something similar would
send a strong message to the public that the Forest Service is not just about production
forestry. Whatever entity emerges should have a strong technical support role vis-à-vis state
and local entities.
4
•
Open space conservation seems to be an Eastern issue and should be promoted that way.
There has been a geographic imbalance toward the West in terms of Forest Service efforts
and political constituencies that set the forest policy agenda. People need to understand that
the loss of forests in the East is equivalent to the loss from wildfire in the West.
Private Forestlands
Existing Forest Service Programs
•
More should be done to increase forest landowner awareness of the opportunities afforded by
Forest Legacy, Forest Stewardship, and other existing programs administered through state
agencies.
•
Images in landowner outreach materials should reflect the racial diversity of the target
audience. For example, it was noted that the Cooperating Across Boundaries report did not
contain any pictures of minorities. Diversifying reports will help the Forest Service appeal to
a broader array of landowners and will help convey the message that these programs are
applicable all communities.
•
As competition for limited funding increases, program eligibility is defined by an evernarrowing set of specialized criteria. These criteria favor a somewhat homogenous group of
large, relatively wealthy landowners. Eligibility criteria should be changed so that the
programs are accessible to smaller landowners and limited program dollars are targeted to
those private lands most at risk.
•
A higher-level strategy or prioritization process should be developed as there will never be
enough money to reach all landowners. In order to make principle investments, a
prioritization process should be established. Green Infrastructure was suggested as one
approach of looking at the system as whole and setting priorities.
•
Existing programs should increase eligibility for working forests and for lands that are
currently a combination of forest and working agriculture. Right now those landowners turn
to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), not the Forest Service.
•
Cost share programs are expensive for states to administer. They tie up staff who could be
delivering the things that landowners say they need most—technical assistance and
education.
•
More could be done from an ecosystem perspective if the federal programs mandated more
cooperation among states in multi-state eco-regions like the Southern Appalachians.
•
The Forest Inventory and Analysis Program does not provide timely data to inform decisions.
Despite increased budgets, the timely provision of data to state and local entities has gotten
worse.
•
Existing programs that were mentioned as useful to an open space conservation strategy
included State Fire Assistance and Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Suppression.
5
Suggestions for Potential New Programs and Approaches
•
Landowners need to see economic opportunities associated with conservation, either through
reduced tax burden, payments for ecological services, recreational fees, or contributing to a
healthy domestic market for forest products. The Forest Service needs programs that help
turn those potential economic opportunities into realities.
•
The Forest Service could play an important role by helping small landholders organize
around communal forest conservation. Most as-risk lands in the South are small parcels in
the lowest income areas.
•
The Forest Service has not adjusted to changing landowner demographics. To be relevant to
the modern Southern landowner, the Forest Service must learn how to reach people who are
buying land for reasons other than production forestry. A message centered on community
development, quality of life, and possibly ecosystem services would reach such landowners.
•
If a national open space initiative is to be successful, State and Private Forestry will need to
take more of a leadership role and not delegate all program development and delivery to 50
different state agencies.
•
Programs targeted at private landowners should not put undue limits on landowner options
now or in the future. In essence, that would be like acquiring the land outright.
•
Partition sale statutes accelerate the development of open space. These and similar state
inheritance laws that accelerate parcelization and development should be reformed.
•
Someone needs to assimilate existing county-level land ownership data in order to develop a
more strategic, coordinated, and targeted approach to acquisition, program enrollment, and
education.
•
The Forest Service could develop programs that help landowners develop public recreational
opportunities in order to capitalize on the growing demand for such opportunities.
•
A broad program based on preserving recreational opportunities speaks to a tangible, quality
of life benefit that the public can understand much better than ecosystem services, non-timber
forest products, or alternative fuels.
•
The Conservation Reserve Program may be a good model for a program that helps to
conserve forests through 15-20 year contracts from which land owners would receive
nominal payments to defray their property tax burden. Such a program could be based on
sustaining essential ecosystem services.
•
The Forest Service has a role in providing technical assistance and education. Collaborating
with local groups to develop landowner summits and local information clearninghouses
would ease some of the financial burden of a 1-on-1 approach, build local capacity, and focus
local efforts on local assets.
Effective Programs in the Past
•
The Rural Community Assistance Economic Action Program facilitated the Forest Service’s
ability to work with rural communities. Such a program would be useful not for helping
6
landowners develop economic opportunities like recreation, biofuels, timber, and non-timber
forest products.
•
The Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) was useful in that it provided options to
states to develop and tailor programs to particular needs. Landowner summits funded through
FLEP were received favorably. A program that allows states that kind of flexibility would be
essential to an open space conservation initiative.
•
The Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry Incentives Program were useful in helping
to address the loss of privately owned forests.
Suggested Models and Examples
ƒ
Hawaii has developed a successful ecosystem services program based on the ability of forests
to provide clean drinking water.
ƒ
The Department of Defense has a program focused on preserving buffer lands around
facilities. Such a program must be careful that it does not continue to push the problem “out,”
but actually deals with the root causes of the loss of open space.
ƒ
The Menominee Nation has a process for communal management of Tribal forests. Elements
of that program could potentially inform community forest management programs in the
South.
Partnerships
•
States will always be the primary source of information for private landowners, so working
closely with and involving state agencies will be critical. Also, the Forest Service should
consider allowing states rights of first purchase on any Forest Service lands that might be
offered for sale in the future so that those lands remain in the public domain.
•
Inter-agency coordination will be essential for a successful open space conservation
initiative. In the South, the Forest Service, NRCS, and state forestry agencies would need to
coordinate and integrate program delivery and outreach.
•
A more purposeful effort by the Forest Service to develop partnerships with local leaders
would be key to a successful open space conservation initiative. Both Washington staff and
local field staff should engage county commissioners and other local officials in dialogue
about stewardship goals, low impact development, and other issues.
•
The Forest Service should engage partners that can reach out to federal and state decision
makers and educate them about the need for programs and resources to help conserve open
space.
•
Many organizations have successfully engaged minority landowners, and the Forest Service
could partners with those organizations. Some of these include:
−
−
−
Black Family Land Trust
Farmers cooperatives
Community development corporations
7
−
−
State leagues of municipalities
Department of Defense programs working with low-income landowners on facility
boundaries
Research
•
More should be done to understand which programs have demonstrated long-term impact
(i.e. decades or more). Such an understanding will inform current and future program
investments.
•
There is a need to document the economic benefits of open space to local communities in
terms of jobs, influx of dollars from recreation, and other benefits. Such findings could be
part of a public outreach campaign to explain the importance of open space conservation.
•
The average woodlot size in the South is 17 acres. Does the Forest Service understand the
motivations and needs of 17-acre woodland owners and what kinds of management outreach
would be useful to them?
•
Do the communities understand how small lots and zoning effect the environment? This type
of information could be provided by the Forest Service to the communities as part of an
educational process.
•
Conservation and development are competing tradeoffs. How strong must economic
conservation incentives be relative to economic development incentives in order to need to
be relative to those for development in order to keep the land in forest?
National Forests and Grasslands
Existing Forest Service Programs1
•
The Forest Service should help local communities take advantage of stewardship contracting
opportunities. Better management of public lands reduces the risk to adjacent private land
and communities from disasters on national forests and that can do a lot to build
relationships.
Suggestions for Potential New Programs and Approaches
•
An aggressive effort is needed to ensure that private in-holdings are managed in a way
consistent with the surrounding public lands, either through direct acquisition or targeted
easements. As private in-holdings in national forests are developed, the existing federal
investment is degraded.
1
Participants generally agreed that the discussion of programs targeted to private landowners addressed many of the
issues around lands adjacent to private forests. The discussion focused more on how the Forest Service could build
stronger partnerships with landowners and communities adjacent to national forests and grasslands.
8
•
A program should be developed to help landowners deal with the crime, over use of land, and
liability issues often associated with the spillover of recreation from national forests to
private lands. Such factors can be strong incentives to sell to developers.
•
The Forest Service could consider developing a permit system whereby users pay a fee
proportionate to what they demand from the resource. Hunters are already accustomed to
paying a fee to use public lands for hunting.
•
As such a program runs the potential risk of discriminating against low income users, a free
pass for local people could be developed.
Suggested Models and Examples
•
North Carolina has a program in which owners of land adjacent to state forests are invited to
landowner meetings to talk about plans for cuts, restoration, wildlife management, and other
issues. The Forest Service could adopt a similar model for building relationships with the
landowners adjacent to national forests.
•
The National Wildlife Refuges went through a comprehensive management planning process
that involved community outreach and involvement. The way in which the refuge intends to
engage local communities is a required part of the refuge plan. That program could serve as a
model for national forests.
•
National forests possess tremendous educational potential, and there are several models of
successful forest-based outreach and education that could be replicated on national forests.
These programs help teachers, students, and the public understand forest management
practices, the importance of well-managed forests, and threats to forests. Examples include:
− North Carolina has seven Educational State Forests, the programs of which are targeted at
school groups and fit into the state curriculum.
− The North Carolina Forestry Association sponsors annual forestry camps for students,
parents, and teachers.
− Duke Forest’s use of educational signage to help the public understand forest
management.
− The Conservation Fund’s “Balancing Nature and Commerce in Communities that
Neighbor Public Lands” class where public land managers and their surrounding
communities attend the class as a team and jointly develop action plans. This course is
used extensively and successfully by the National Park Service.
Partnerships
•
The Forest Service could partners with local communities to provide in-kind contributions
that augment community development initiatives.
•
The Forest Service could also make planning resources and training available to local
jurisdictions to enhance their planning capacity.
9
•
Partnership with the Forest Service is critical for helping landowners develop recreational
opportunities consistent with national forest management goals. The Hatfield and McCoy
Trails in West Virginia is a good example that creates economic incentives for keeping land
in forests. More locally, the Forest Service could provide public restrooms in areas
frequented by recreationists in order to serve those forest users while removing the burden
from local merchants.
•
In addition to recreation, the Forest Service could help communities adjacent to national
forests develop and promote markets for non-timber forest products or other desirable forestrelated goods and services.
•
The Forest Service could work more closely with land trusts active around national forests
and grasslands. Land trusts are actively involved in planning, able to act more nimbly than a
federal agency, and help leverage diverse sources of funding.
•
The Sand Hills Conservation Partnership’s work around Fort Bragg could be a useful model
for developing partnerships around national forests. The Partnership consists of Fort Bragg
and 11 other state, local, and federal agencies that develop and share conservation plans for
10 targeted areas on the fort’s periphery, and also work together to prioritize acquisition
opportunities. The partnership has helped to leverage resources, built relationships among
organizations, and served as a good sounding board for other initiatives.
•
Another example of an effective partnership is how Bryson City in Swain County, North
Carolina, worked with land trusts to get state money for easements in a water supply
watershed. The program was structured so that the town got money for upgrading its water
and sewer infrastructure.
•
Forest Service should explore concepts outlined in The Conservation Fund’s new report,
Conservation Based Affordable Housing.
Research
•
Tools exist that allow planners to develop build-out scenarios and test the consequences of
policies and programs. The Forest Service could use such tools to help its planners and the
public understand the consequences of development in and around national forests.
Urban and Community Forests
Overarching Comments
•
Urban population centers, not just rural communities, are important outreach targets because
of their strong voting power.
•
More should be done to elevate the visibility of the urban and community forest program
within the larger conservation community.
Programs
10
•
There is a need to enhance the planning capacity of small Southern towns to understand
innovative concepts like low impact development, performance-based zoning, and the
development of near-in recreational opportunities.
•
It would be useful to focus urban and community forestry resources on one or two
prototypical expanding Southern cities and demonstrate how urban and community forestry
can contribute to overcoming regional forest conservation challenges.
•
As the population rapidly urbanizes, we are losing our collective relationship with and
knowledge of the natural world. The Forest Service could do more to teach urban people
about the importance of rural lands to their quality of life.
•
More could be done to help urban and community forestry programs reach out to and involve
schools.
•
The Youth Conservation Corps used to get money from the Forest Service through the
Economic Action Program, but such sources are no longer available. The Corps has been
successful in helping urban youth develop skills, learn about natural resources, and give back
to the community.
•
Several programs could serve as models or illustrative examples of programs to address
conservation of open space in urban settings. These include:
−
−
−
−
−
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management is required to help coastal
communities with their planning.
The National Greenway System is creating more opportunities for urban recreation.
The New England model of community-owned forests has been successful at conserving
forests.
The Conservation Fund is working with Hoke County, North Carolina, to establish a
working community forest that also incorporates conservation-based affordable housing.
Publications like Carolina Trees are written for urban audiences and explain the
relationship between urban growth and natural resources.
Partnerships
•
The U.S. EPA is investing resources in urban environmental education and could be a
potential partner.
•
Project Learning Tree, Project Wet, and Project Wild are all well established environmental
education programs used widely in schools. The Forest Service should make a connection
with the organizations that sponsor and manage these programs.
•
NRCS is doing innovative work with stormwater management and using the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process to help provide incentives
for forest conservation. The Forest Service should learn from what its sister agency is doing.
•
Brownfield redevelopment groups, downtown revitalization groups, and cycling groups
would all be good partners for urban and community forest projects.
11
Research
•
•
Based on successful case studies from around the nation, the Forest Service could develop a
model ordinance for small, rural towns that would help to protect forests within their
boundaries.
The Forest Service could also collect and distribute best practices for dealing with crimes that
are occasionally associated with urban forests.
12
ATTENDEE LIST
Victor Harris
President
Cierra Publishing Company
919-215-1632
ccpublishing@earthlink.net
Bryan Burhans
National Wild Turkey Foundation
803-637-3106
bburhans@nwtf.net
Margarita Carey
CLN Program Associate
The Conservation Fund
304-876-7924
mcarey@conservationfund.org
Rick Hatten
Chief, Forest Management
Georgia Forestry Commission
478-751-3486
rhatten@gfc.state.ga.us
Walter Cartwright
Forest Management Chief
Alabama Forestry Commission
334-240-9331
Walter.Cartwright@forestry.alabama.gov
Lark Hayes
Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
(919) 967-1450
larkhayes@selcnc.org
Christina Davis-McCoy
Executive Director
Blue Springs-Hoke County Community
Development Corporation
910-904-0312
cdavis-mccoy@msn.com
Mavis Hill
Executive Director
Tyrrell County Community Development Corp
252-796-1991
tccdc@earthlink.net
Sandra Ford
Minority Outreach Officer
Mississippi Forestry Commission
601-877-6540
sford@mfc.state.ms.us
Kris Hoellen
CLN Director
The Conservation Fund
304-876-7462
khoellen@conservationfund.org
Katie Goslee
Landowner Assistance Specialist
US Forest Service--Cooperative Forestry
202.205.1376
kgoslee@fs.fed.us
Savi Horne
Land Loss Prevention Project
919-682-5969
savi@landloss.org
13
Bob Slocum, Jr.
Executive Vice President
North Carolina Forestry Association
919-834-3943
rwslocum@ncforestry.org
Betty Hurst
HandMade in America
828-252-0121
bettyhurst@handmadeinamerica.org
Ed Macie
Southern Region Urban Forester
US Forest Service--Cooperative Forestry
404-347-1647
emacie@fs.fed.us
John Spurrell
Policy Analyst
North Carolina League of Municipalities
919.715.4126
jspurrel@nclm.org
Larry Mikkelson
Forest Legacy Program Coodinator
Virginia Department of Forestry
434.220.9091
larry.mikkelson@dof.virginia.gov
Larry Such
Section Chief Forest Management
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
919 733 2162
Larry.Such@ncmail.net
Rusty Painter
Conservation Trust for North Carolina
919-828-5408
RUSTY@CTNC.ORG
Jay West
Mediator
Meridian Institute
202.354.6453
jwest@merid.org
Richard Perritt
Executive Director
Sandhills Area Land Trust
910-695-4323
rperritt@sandhillslandtrust.org
14