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