The Conservation Fund ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE LISTENING SESSION U.S. Forest Service Role in Conserving Open Space – Development of a National Strategy Friday, December 1, 2006 1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 SUMMARY REPORT 1 The Conservation Fund ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE LISTENING SESSION U.S. Forest Service Role in Conserving Open Space – Development of a National Strategy Friday, December 1, 2006 1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 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 Sarah Walen, Meridian Institute 10:30 – 11:00 Overview of Forest Service Holdings, Private Lands and threats to Open Space – Kathryn Conant, Forest Legacy Program Manager 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? 2 • Research: Are there areas where additional research is needed, or areas where research gaps exist? 2:30 – 2:45 BREAK 2:45 – 4:00 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? 4:00 – 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 Friday, December 1, 2006 1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC This document provides a summary of suggestions made by participants in the December 1, 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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC. 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 The U.S. Forest Service’s Role in Conserving Open Space • While it is great that the Forest Service is considering weighing in on the issue of open space, it first must clearly define and communicate its role in this national effort before determining which tools, programs, partnerships etc., should be developed. The Forest Service role could include: - Providing ‘catalytic leadership’. This would include serving as a resource on open space, identifying and convening technical experts, advocating for appropriate levels of program funding, serving as a clearinghouse of information, etc. The Forest Service will need to consider when or if this role is feasible and/or appropriate given their decision-making status in this area. - Serving as an effective advocate among other federal agencies involved in conservation programs. At this time, interagency dialogue regarding open space is significantly lacking. - Coordinating and synthesizing related planning and priority setting among federal agencies. A particular need is insuring more equitable levels of funding among federal programs. For example, the Forest Service could help to address the fact that the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) receives substantially more funding than the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). Additionally, the Forest Service could also work with other federal agencies to coordinate on both funding individual projects, and on integrating statewide planning with other interagency planning.. - Building capacity at the local level and at other scales across the landscape. - Fostering market development on private lands, such as wood-based bio energy plants, to help reduce fuel loads on forested lands. - Establishing an approach for measuring progress in conserving open space. 4 Metrics and Criteria • As part of the national strategy development, the Forest Service should establish metrics, along with the accompanying criteria, in order to determine the effectiveness of the strategy before proceeding with implementation. Metrics are necessary to measure whether or not the strategy is achieving its intended goals and for discerning which actions within the strategy are successful. Qualitative and quantitative measures can be used to measure the success of the strategy, each with accompanying advantages and disadvantages. In considering the establishment of metrics, the following should occur and/or be considered: - Develop (and agree) on a definition for ‘open space’. - Focus on measuring success in geographic areas of concern, rather than on generic measures (e.g., focus on the ‘right’ acres, not necessarily on the overall number of acres preserved). - Address all forested land – private and public. - Do not take responsibility for assigning a numeric goal for open space – this is not a federal role. - Look at the relationship with other managed threats such as fire and invasive plants. This strategy should be integrated into other program areas and should not be developed in isolation as each threat is interrelated. - Utilize information that crosses ownership and other boundaries (e.g., the Gap Analysis Program (GAP)). - As there may be competing interests between other federal agencies, establish and agree on a cross agency approach for measurement. There will be overlap with other natural resource concerns such as water and wildlife. - Avoid establishing competing measurement criteria. - Clearly define the metrics explicitly stating the goal for each metric (e.g., is the metric to maintain forest product markets?) - Recognize and plan for the fact that all metrics have the capacity to be counter productive. - Avoid qualitative targets and focus instead on landscapes of interest. - Utilize the National Report on Sustainable Forests – 2003 as a vehicle to assess landscape level data and help to establish an agreed upon set of priorities. State Wildlife Action Plans may provide a similar resource, but are limited by differences in approach across state borders. - Include a metric for use of collaborative approaches to conserving open space. Other Observations • Define and communicate the priority of open space among other Forest Service Programs. Establish its relative priority to the four great threats identified by Chief Bosworth in 2003, as its priority relates to the development of a national strategy on conserving open space. • In determining the Forest Service strategy for conserving open space, recognize and adapt the strategy to address regional differences. Land management issues and needs are different in the East and West. Build flexibility into the strategy. • To help insure the effectiveness of the open space strategy externally, work on improving the planning capacity within the Forest Service. 5 • Bring water into the discussion on forestry. Water is increasingly viewed as the heart of many environmental issues, and may serve to enhance the visibility of the issue of conserving open space. The connection with water can be used to identify partners, leverage resource, engage the public, and enhance the overall level of visibility and importance of the issue. • Environmental Justice issues need to factor into the criteria for conserving open space in urban (and other) environments. • Continue to expand the dialogue on developing a national strategy for conserving open space. Extend the public comment period. Consider hosting additional listening sessions among other groups, such as groups of similar interest in order to have more in depth discussions - specific issues (e.g., local planners, conservation groups). Make public involvement in the development of the national plan on-going. Consider forming a steering committee to provide input throughout the process. Private Forestland and the Surrounding Landscape Overarching Comments • Do not jeopardize other successful efforts underway such as the corporate sector’s technical assistance to the tree farm program and other private and nonprofit efforts. • Remember that private lands are part of the Nation’s forests. They are often overlooked. Private lands are part of a set of broader forest issues. • Bring the conservation lands database up-to-date. The database needs to include conservation easements in order to fully assess whether easements are making a difference in conserving open space. Update the forest cover map as well. Existing Forest Service Programs • The Forest Legacy Program (FLP): - Is a great tool but it is not adequately funded. - May be limited by the corresponding need for state funding required to mange the program. - Needs more grant support for partnerships with local governments and land trusts. - Takes too much time to actualize. The three to four year timeframe is too long, and serves as a deterrent from utilizing the program. - Is limited because it is difficult to work with at the municipal scale. This challenge decreases FLP’s utility in areas where there is local purchasing of forest land. Examples of localities purchasing forested land for open space include: the Vermont Town Forest Project; Bucks County, PA; Arcadia, CA. • Because of the limited utility of FLP in the purchase of community forests, the Forest Service should explore ways for their programs to better support or complement community forest open space programs. They might consider establishing a community open space program. 6 Effective Programs in the Past • Reinvigorate the use of Land Swaps as tool for access to open space, and place more emphasis on access to forested land. Increase the visibility of open space conservation from the vantage point of access to recreation. Engage the wildlife community in concerns about access and loss of access to open space. • Continue to utilize Economic Action Programs (EAP) in the Cooperative Forestry Program. These programs have been used effectively to develop the capacity to build and stimulate markets in rural communities. Consider developing other similar grant programs that are flexible and allow the landowner to revitalize markets. Suggestions for Potential New Programs and Approaches • The NRCS Farms and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) is an example of a grant program that takes a reasonable amount of time to process and implement (18 months). The challenge this program faces is that the rules change on a regular basis. It would be ideal to develop a tool/grant program that was efficient and consistent. • There are two programs in the Farm Bill which may be models for new approaches: 1) the Cooperative Conservation Program [Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative], a locally lead program on specified resources which is designed to cut across boundaries; and 2) the Conservation Loan Program. • The Farm Bill can offer a sizable but not sufficient amount of funding to support existing tools. Utilize the Tax Code as a way to increase the funding for these tools. Consider advocating for an extension of the new tax deduction rules, particularly the pension bill. • The largest challenge will be developing tools that address the difference between the economic value of developing land and preserving forested land. Ecosystem services provide a way to create additional value. The success of ecosystem services and other tools addressing this need will entail building political and public awareness of open space conservation and concepts such as ecosystem services. • Consider a tool, like one NRCS is developing that, will help the landowner measure and quantify environmental benefits associated with various conservation practices. Similar tools are available in the UK. The utility of the tool might be enhanced if applied at the watershed scale, including the services provided by water and conserving open space. • Strengthen and develop tools that promote land stewardship. The Forest Service needs to do more to encourage land stewardship, including coordinating with other agencies and the broader forest community. • A good example of bringing private and public funds to bear is the Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Collaborative - a public/private effort to protect a broad corridor of interconnected 7 conservation lands along the Monadnock Highlands, stretching from the Quabbin Reservoir in central Massachusetts to New Hampshire's Mt. Cardigan and beyond into the White Mountains. • Explore as a potential tool for open space conservation, the layering of programs such as is done in the Conservation Security Program in the UK. An example might be layering the FLP and NRCS’ Conservation Security Program (CSP). • Establish an Emergency Evolving Loan to provide states with more time to plan for the strategy and purchase of open space. Partnerships • The Forest Service should view the private landowner as a ‘customer’. This shift in perception will help enhance the understanding that coordination is not just occurring across federal lands, but across all lands. • To further landowner education on methods for valuing and assessing their land, the Forest Service should establish a partnership with The Nature Conservancy to utilize their ‘Conservation Area Planning’ (CAP) method. The CAP is a method for setting priorities in land planning based on a biodiversity database. They can also continue their partnership with the Conservation Fund to continue to promote green infrastructure as a planning tool. • A recent survey performed by the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) showed that a very small percent of private landowners are aware of the suite of tools available for conserving open space. The Forest Service could serve as a clearing house to make it easier for the private landowner to access and utilize the tools available. • The NRCS has a history of working directly and successfully with the private landowner. The Forest Service could learn from the NRCS model, and may be well advised to research how other federal programs work with private landowners. • The Forest Service could coordinate the resources to map the areas on forested lands that need to be protected. A model for this type of effort is the National Park Service (NPS) Trails System where the NPS works in partnership with other federal agencies and communities integrating the green infrastructure program. • Identify and develop more partnerships with volunteers. An example of a successful partnership with volunteers is the Conservation Easement Monitoring program. • The Urban and Community Forestry Program is under-funded. Look for partnerships to help increase the funding for that program. • Explore the value of a partnership with organizations such as the League of Cities, Council of Mayors, etc. regarding forests and the conservation of open space. • Allow for more flexible mechanisms to formalize partnerships (e.g., through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)). 8 Research Needs and Gaps • Research the Tax Code and analyze whether and how taxes can be used to fund or substantiate the funding of tools that encourage private land owners to preserve open space. • Explore mechanisms for enhancing land value through ecosystem services. Additional research is necessary to assess ecosystem service values, along with who will pay for them. Research results should be widely disseminated. • Research the economic benefits of conservation. As part of that research, assess the cost of the loss of open space (community services), along with the benefits that accrue from preservation of open space. • Research whether existing programs and tools are working? Are landowner patterns changing? • Currently, little information is available on private landowner decision-making processes, specifically, what motivates them and how do they make decisions about managing, buying or selling their land. This lack of information is largely due to the fact that many private landowners make their decisions ‘around the kitchen table’. It would be valuable to understand more about the types of incentives and/or subsidies that would encourage open space conservation by the private land owner. One source of research in this area is Landowner Research performed at the University of Massachusetts. The Forest Service should support this program. National Forests and Grasslands and the Surrounding Landscape Overarching Comments • The impact of Forest Service management of National Forests has, in many cases, had a negative impact on surrounding lands (e.g., impacts of insects and wildfire on timber sales and mills). Management practices on National Forests have reduced the value of abutting lands; these practices should be reviewed as part and parcel of the development of a national open space strategy. • The National Forest Planning Process should: - - Include all stakeholders in the National Forest Planning process, particularly those owning and managing abutting properties. Integrate land use and development considerations occurring outside the National Forest ‘fenceline’ into the planning process. Bring stakeholders into the planning process early. Good models for this approach include the process utilized for input on the White Mountain National Forest and the NPS’s approach to public involvement in their management plans. Emphasize collaboration with neighbors in the planning and implementation process. 9 • Is there a more effective way of transferring ‘best management practices’ in the field throughout the National Forest system? How can the Forest Service foster ‘creativity, attitude, and energy’ among staff? How does the leadership within the Forest Service currently monitor field staff activity? How are ‘stars’ acknowledged and promoted? • The Forest Service should develop case studies of effective field practices and disseminate broadly. Creativity and community interaction should become a metric in individual performance reviews. • Look for ways to abate the loss of institutional knowledge. It is of ten the perception that Forest Service Superintendents who are doing a good job interacting with their surrounding communities are often moved to other Forests in need of their skills. In such cases, the Forest Service should consider having the replacement Superintendent transition into the job, so as not to lose the good work that has been done. Consider establishing ‘transition teams’ to help prepare for the transition of leadership within the Forest Service. Existing Forest Service Programs • Direct funding to conserve open space based on threat and vulnerability. Citizens should be part of developing the strategy for funding allocation and land acquisition. Eastern National Forests are severely threatened by parcelization and should be one of the priorities for the National Forest Land Acquisition funding program. Suggestions for Potential New Programs and Approaches • The Forest Service should consider developing an in holding and buffer land program. A more systematic approach to identifying and mapping critical in holdings within the National Forests would be beneficial to help identify critical funding needs. The Department of Defense (DoD) has a successful in holding and buffer land program which might serve as a model for preserving open space. Something appears to be wrong with the National Forest Acquisition Program. In holdings and buffer lands should receive top priority for funding. Forest Service should map critical in holdings with the National Forests. • Foster a cultural shift within the Forest Service and the National Forest System. Develop and adopt programs that promote collaboration with community (e.g., Community Wildfire Protection Plan). Go beyond the perception that community involvement is an obstacle. Forest Service leadership needs to recognize that collaborative approaches take time, and that the success of collaborative processes needs to be measured on a different scale. • There are different ways to reward individuals for their willingness to try creative approaches. Ashoka (http://www.ashoka.org/whatwedo) is an example of an organization that supports social entrepreneurs who are trying ways to do things differently and to make social change. 10 Partnerships • Look for more opportunities for partnership with communities around National Forests. Consider initiating a dialogue to learn from them about the value of National Forests. • The Moosalamoo Association sponsored a Vermont community project to adopt part of the National Forest to manage. The project was successful and helped citizens to learn about forest management. • Reach out to organizations, such as the American Planning Association, to learn about other tools for conserving open space Research Needs and Gaps • Global climate change will impact forests and open space overtime by reducing the area of healthy forests. The Forest Service should contribute to research on the impact of climate change on forests. • The Forest Service should reassess and reaffirm the role of the national forests in 2030 as part of the development of the national strategy. What will be the role of the national forests in 2030? Urban Forests and the Surrounding Landscape Overarching Comments • Forest Service Visibility: - - • Some felt that increasing Forest Service visibility is important for the following reasons: It is important for the Forest Service to be more visible in the changing landscape to help people understand more about the importance of preserving forest land and open space and the role of the Forest Service. For instance, without Forest Service visibility and involvement in the Highlands project, the public would have understood less about the importance of the Highland forests and the Forest Service’s role in that process. Others felt increasing Forest Service visibility in urban areas is not necessary. The Forest Service should focus on helping communities address priority areas through programs like Green Infrastructure, where priorities can be developed based upon ecosystem needs and community goals. Forest Service’s Role in the Urban Environment: - Is to plan. Supply tools and investments to help communities with projects. Prioritize investments. Consult with stakeholders on land management (stewardship) following purchase of open space. Leverage funds from the Farm Bill and other resources to create new programs. 11 • The Role of the Forest Service in assessing the importance of forests and priority areas: - • Provide funding to bridge shortfalls and/or divergences in regional, state and local funding. Federal dollars can also provide impetus for states to contribute funds. Should be part of the Forest Service Mission. For example, the Forest Service report, Forests on the Edge, was a primary source of information used by advocates to pass the Highlands Conservation Act. In the report, the Forest Service indicated the likelihood of substantial housing developments in private forests – which served as a key piece of information. Others felt this is not a role for the Forest Service because national level information about urban areas can be misleading. Others suggested the Forest Service should identify important forests and ground truth their selection with local information. All agreed States should be responsible for landscape analysis. The Forest Service should provide quality control on landscape analysis and coordinate between states when necessary. Consider supporting the Suburban and Community Forestry Bill. Existing Forest Service Programs • Grants from the Urban & Community Forestry program are important because the longevity and vitality of forests in urban areas are threatened. • Green Infrastructure is an important program. It integrates forests along with other key resources, including water and water quality. • The work that has been done on preserving the Highlands of Connecticut and Pennsylvania by the Appalachian Mountain Club and other members of the Highlands Coalition is a good example of a successful collaborative approach to preserving a nationally significant region threatened by urban sprawl. However, the visibility of this region and the kind of funding available through the Highlands Conservation Act may not serve as a replicable model. Suggestions for Potential New Programs and Approaches • Children are losing their connection to natural environments like forests. This may be an opportunity for the Forest Service, through the resources of the Urban & Community Forestry program, to bolster local capacity by providing technical and educational assistance to help reverse this trend. • Consider developing a grant program to support community involvement in cultivating gardens in urban vacant lots. • The Vermont Town Forest Project developed based on a requirement of the Forest Management Plan. This might be a good model for a national grants program. 12 Partnerships • Don’t give up on the contributions regions can make in urban areas. Historically, metropolitan regions were built where the funding for critical infrastructure was directed - around utilities (water and sewer). Regional funding is now devoted to transportation and highways. In urban areas, consider the regional structure and context, and work with the regions to plan for the ‘next ring around the region’. • The Forest Service can serve as a catalytic leader convening local government and private partners to educate and encourage them to play a role in shaping their urban landscape. This could be an opportunity to coordinate with local entities on technical and research needs, and funding partnerships. • Beginning with Habitat developed a successful program working collaboratively with communities on their local strategies for conservation. The Forest Service could learn from them about new tools and approaches, and/or partner with them on similar programs. • In most urban forest areas in the northeast, states are viewed as the lead forest agency and the Forest Service is not well known. The Forest Service could collaborate with the states to help them build their urban forest programs and learn more about the regional differences. • Once open space is protected, it is not always clear how it will be managed. In the case of easements, the private land owner will manage the open space. However, the process for managing open space transferred to communities is not clear. In such circumstances, the Forest Service could partner with the community and state agencies to share its expertise in long-term land stewardship. • Find better ways to relate the Forest Service mission and objectives to urban community activities and needs. One example might be involving schools in the management of greenways and gardens. The school might provide fertilizer from the school waste, and students might take part in gardening and other land management activities. Research Needs and Gaps • There is some indication that the proximity to urban forests is correlated with lower crime rates, however there is not much information to support this hypothesis. This is an opportunity for research, the results of which may help to increase the value attributed to urban forests. • Initiate research to determine how much open space is needed across the nation. Once this amount is understood, determine how expensive it will be to protect that amount of land. This exercise will convey to the public the magnitude of the challenge. 13 ATTENDEES LIST Jim Baird Director, Sustainability Education Izaak Walton League (301) 548-0150 jbaird@iwla.org Jad Daley Campaign Director Northern Forest Alliance 802-253-8227 jdaley@nfainfo.org Jessica Blackburn Coordinator, Citizens Advisory Committee Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 410.377.6270 jblackburn@acb-online.org Jimmy Daukus Manager, Farm Policy Reform American Farmland Trust (202) 378-1242 jdaukas@farmland.org Paul Doscher Vice President, Land Conservation Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests 603-224-9945 pdoscher@forestsociety.org Nadine Block Manager, Forest Policy American Forest and Paper Association 202-463-2753 nadine_Block@afandpa.org Caroline Dufour Lands and Resources Coordinator Appalachian Trail Conservancy 304.535.6331 cdufour@appalachiantrail.org Robert Bonnie Co-Director, Land Water and Wildlife Program Environmental Defense 202-387-3500 rbonnie@environmentaldefense.org Paul Farmer Executive Director & CEO American Planning Association 202-872-0611 ExDir@planning.org Margarita Carey Program Associate, Conservation Leadership Network The Conservation Fund 304-876-7924 mcarey@conservationfund.org Tom Gilbert Director, Eastern Forest Conservation Wilderness Society 215-343-1110 tom_gilbert@tws.org Kathryn Conant Forest Legacy Program Manager US Forest Service 202-401-4072 kconant@fs.fed.us Katie Goslee Landowner Assistance Specialist US Forest Service 202.205.1376 kgoslee@fs.fed.us James W. Cox Executive Director National Association of State Conservation Agencies (804) 443-1527 jwcox@crosslink.net 14 Claire Harper Forest Legacy Specialist US Forest Service 202-205-6690 claireharper@fs.fed.us Sarah Walen Senior Mediator Meridian Institute 970.513.8340 skwalen@merid.org Kris Hoellen Director, Conservation Leadership Network The Conservation Fund 304-876-7462 khoellen@conservationfund.org Larry Wiseman President American Forest Foundation 202-463-2462 lwiseman@forestfoundation.org Richard Innes Conservation Strategies, LLC 202-354-6457 Richinnes@aol.com Jeff Lerner Defenders of Wildlife 202-772-0291 jlerner@defenders.org Rita Neznek Director, Forest Policy Society of American Foresters 301.897.8720 neznekr@safnet.org Al Sample President Pinchot Institute for Conservation 202.797.6580 alsample@pinchot.org Laura Schweitzer Director of Forest Policy American Forests 202) 737-1944 lschweitzer@amfor.org Molly Thiebald Appalachian Regional Commission 202-884-7767 mtheobald@arc.gov 15