The Conservation Fund
ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE LISTENING SESSION
U.S. Forest Service Role in Conserving Open Space
Development of a National Strategy
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
740 Simms Street
Golden, Colorado 80401
1

The Conservation Fund
ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE LISTENING SESSION
U.S. Forest Service Role in Conserving Open Space
Development of a National Strategy
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
740 Simms Street
Golden, Colorado 80401
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
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 12:30
Overview of Forest Service Holdings, Private Lands and threats to Open
Space – Jon Haber, Northern Region Conservation Planner
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?
12:30 – 1:00
1:00 – 2:30
LUNCH
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?
2

2:30 – 2:45
2:45 – 3:45
3:45 – 4:30
•
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?
BREAK
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?
Wrap-Up
3

The Conservation Fund
ROUNDTABLE DIALOGUE LISTENING SESSION
U.S. Forest Service Role in Conserving Open Space
Development of a National Strategy
740 Simms Street
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Denver, CO
This document provides a summary of suggestions made by participants in the December 5,
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 USDA Forest Service R2 Office in Golden, CO.
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 Forest Service’s ability to meet its current list of responsibilities is already challenged by limited resources. It is unclear how adding the responsibility of implementing the open space conservation strategy on-the-ground can be accomplished within existing resources and staffing. Potential repercussions, such as the resulting addition /or shift of more responsibilities to District Ranger and field staff, should be thought through and accommodated.
•
The Forest Service appears ‘risk adverse’ (or ‘opportunity adverse’) in its general approach to working with the public and as a general course of business. With the exception of staff who are willing to show leadership in the field, this aversion can be interpreted as reluctance to solve problems. There may be some value in looking at and learning from how other federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), work with the public.
The Forest Service needs to undergo a cultural change in its attitude and philosophy.
Concepts such as creativity and collaboration should be added to each employees performance review..
•
Clearly define and translate to the public the federal role in each of these scenarios (National
Forests and Grasslands, Private Forested land, and urban forests). Know the limitations of the Forest Service role in each scenario and function accordingly.
•
Define a vision for the Forest Service and articulate it to all partners.
•
Local governments can be significant partners in addressing the challenge of conserving open space.
4

•
The amount of time provided for public input into the development of the Forest Service
Open Space Conservation Strategy and Implementation Plan is too short. It would be helpful if the Forest Service extended the comment period.
•
The impact of energy development and production on grasslands is not well managed in the short – or long-term. Where reclamation occurs, replacement vegetation is often non-native and invasive.
Partnerships
•
The Forest Service is seen as reluctant to enter into partnerships and somewhat insular in its approach to achieving its mission. If partnerships are viewed as important, Forest Service leadership needs to translate that view throughout the organization. District Rangers responsible for fostering partnerships in their regions need clear direction from Forest
Service leadership on the importance of partnering in their work. The success of fostering and managing partnerships will, in large part, be dependant on the personality and capability of the District Ranger.
•
When working with partners, let them do what they do best. Focus on developing relationships with partners and foster trust.
•
Make success in collaboration with partners a metric in the performance review system.
The National Strategy
•
Look at the National Strategy on Open Space holistically, across agencies and directives.
Recognize and plan for the potential tension between competing national demands on land for transportation and energy, e.g., the Transportation Bill includes buying an easement through National Forest land.
•
Expand the National Strategy to include all forests and all of the 4 threats identified by the
Chief in 2003.
•
Turn the four major threats to positives; focus on the opportunities they present, e.g., encroachment of invasive species represents an opportunity to reintroduce native species.
•
Define how much open space is needed and develop the Strategy based on that need.
•
Prioritize and focus on contiguous areas of healthy ecosystems.
What Success Would Look Like
•
Define what success would look like if the national need for open space was met. How would success on conserving open space be measured alone, and in the context of addressing the other critical threats identified by the Chief?
5

•
Success is achieving healthy, dynamic forests that are able to regenerate. Success should not be restricted to the measure of economic viability. Select the tools and approaches in this context.
National Forests and Grasslands and the Surrounding Landscape
Existing Forest Service Programs
•
Private land owners want to utilize the FLP to conserve open space but they are discouraged from using it because it takes too long and the burden of cost is fully their responsibility. It used to take 3 years to complete the FLP, and now it can take up to 9 years to complete the process. This delay, coupled with the burden of cost, has resulted in lost opportunity. The national land acquisition program should be reviewed and revamped as it does not appear to be working.
•
An increasingly familiar challenge to using conservation easements is the occurrence of a roadway obstructing access to the land. As there are layers of supervision, it is hard to reach a decision point on the issue of access, taking considerable too much time.
•
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is time consuming and presents a snag in the land transfer process. While the Forest Service can not circumvent this process, their staff could provide some initial feedback/encouragement to their partners to continue pursuing the deal. The Forest Service needs to understand that their partners are taking a risk in working with the process, and a little reassurance from the Forest Service would be helpful.
•
The Forest Service could encourage private land owners near National Forests, particularly those that do not have proactive county or city governments, to manage their lands sustainably by encouraging them to use the resources (e.g., on predators, fire, development, water) provided through the Urban & Community Forestry program. The Urban &
Community Forestry program could be more proactive in these areas by providing land owner incentives.
•
Make better use of Small Tracts Act transactions for land exchange and the acquisition of mining claims (e.g., the Ouray, CO process used by the Forest Service). Look creatively and think carefully about all transactions.
•
The Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are not being made to local governments to help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries.
Effective Programs in the Past
•
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), previously a successful program for conserving open space, is drying up because of insufficient and unreliable funds. It would be good to revitalize this program.
6

Suggestions for Potential New Programs and Approaches
•
The Forest Planning process could be a more effective tool for integrating agreements and cooperation on forest management. The Forest Plan Revision process in the Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre and Gunnison National (GMUG) Forests worked successfully through the
Pathfinder Group to report on water resource management, but there were snags in the NEPA process.
•
Consider working through organizations like the Pathfinder Group to assist in collaborating with stakeholders around National Forests to address shared open space concerns and plans.
•
The Forest Service should seek to enter into more strategic partnerships as a way to enhance the effectiveness of the Forest Planning tool. For instance, the Forest Service could consider formalizing a relationship with BLM to coordinate on addressing water issues by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and than integrating the MOU into a Forest
Plan Revision. In doing so, the Forest Service could benefit from BLM’s strengths of working with the public (e.g., familiarity and confidence working with states, proactive approach to getting things done, working within local legislation).
•
One tool utilized to address the expanding timeframes for land transfer is to work through an organization like Trust for Public Land to hold the land in trust temporarily while the paper work is completed and funding is achieved. However, the organizations responsible for the interim holding are at risk because of potential hang-ups, particularly with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Factors which help to reduce the concern of risk include the personality of the federal agent guiding the process and their willingness to provide some level of assurance that the land transfer will come to fruition. In addition, early assessment of the likelihood of successful land transfer and cost would help reduce concerns of risk.
•
The Forest Service is under-staffed. Staff are not always fully trained in areas that would facilitate their ability to perform their duties efficiently. In particular, staff who are in the position to work with the public on the transfer of historic mining sites are not necessarily educated about the hazards and regulations associated with mining sites and are therefore not able to council a third party coordinating a potential land transfer on the potential risk. The
Forest Service should provide appropriate training for staff in these positions.
•
It is important to be cautious about the transfer of public lands to help insure that environmental concerns are weighed and to avoid issues such as development on potentially hazardous lands. There is a need for some level of public review to help avoid the potential for inappropriate transfer of public lands using, as a basis, comprehensive maps and land use information. The Forest Service could serve as the lead in helping to insure public review, if properly trained.
7

•
Consider coordinating with the Office of General Council on an assessment of risk, particularly on Western in holdings impacted by historic mining, to inform future land transfers for open space.
•
Play a role in educating developers about the hazards of fire and fire control when homes are built in forests, and discourage this area of development by not granting driveway easements across major stretches of National Forest land.
•
‘Incentivize’ best land management practices on private lands surrounding National Forests by establishing a grant program that would support developing sustainable land management plans for boundary lands. Take the opportunity to encourage the land owner to think broadly about including other elements in the plan, like water conservation.
•
Encourage staff to draw on successful and creative land transfer examples from within the
National Forest System. Make these resources available to all staff.
•
Counties and cities can work together on where growth and open space conservation will be allowed as part of their shared vision and long-term planning. The pattern of growth agreed upon could be formalized in an Intergovernmental Agreement between the county and the city.
Partnerships
•
Streamline the land exchange process by cultivating partnerships. Start by initiating a dialogue with local groups who might be involved with land exchange and work with them to develop common goals on land exchange. Having worked together to establish common goals, the Forest Service and local groups may be able to come to agreement more readily on future land exchanges.
•
Tap into the power of recreation. Develop partnerships with organizations like Outdoor
Alliance, who have developed relationships with local communities to help keep lands open for recreational use. Organizations like these have dual missions – conservation and recreation.
•
Be more proactive with partners surrounding National Forests. Reach out and educate small private land owners and other local entities about the value of open space and appropriate ways to conserve it.
•
Make sure staff are aware of existing Forest Service partners and the expertise they offer.
Work with them and take advantage of their strengths to help develop and implement the
National Open Space strategy.
•
Establish relationships with local umbrella organizations like the Colorado Coalition of Land
Trusts, to learn more about other potential partners.
8

•
Once created, share the Forest Service vision with partners and seek to understand how this vision overlaps and/or differs from their partners.
Research Needs and Gaps
•
The Forest Service should assess the need for open space and the availability of open space across the nation. They should prioritize that information and use it to inform the development of the National Strategy. The Forest Service should then commit to implementing the plan following those priorities. There is a need to act quickly on the conservation of open space in the East.
•
Some of the Forest Service rules deter land transfers. For example, the Forest Service restricts the transfer of ‘bequest properties’ with multiple use easements. This and other restrictive rules discourage some non governmental organizations (NGOs) from working with the Forest Service. There may be value in the Forest Service learning more about why
NGOs prefer to work with other federal agencies.
•
Information on the cost of providing services to extended communities developed in the forest away from municipal/city centers could be valuable information to provide counties and others interfacing with future developers. Economic factors/disincentives such as this information could help change the development culture.
Private Forestland and the Surrounding Landscape
Overarching Comments
•
The discussion on private forestland in the West should be expanded to include grasslands.
Grasslands are experiencing parcelization and fragmentation as well, and seem to be off most people’s radar screen.
•
The strong demand for private ownership of rural land does not necessarily threaten the landscape. Many landowners are conservationists and practice responsible land management. Recognize this reality when crafting a National Strategy, and guide landowners to manage their land responsibly.
•
The goal is not to convert all privately owned open space into public ownership, so the Forest
Service and the public need to think creatively about other ways to conserve open space. The vision of the National Strategy on Open Space should guide this creative thinking.
•
In developing the strategy, recognize the interdependence between federally and privately owned lands. Actions on one influence the conditions on the other, and vice versa.
9

•
In view of the small percent of federally owned forest land, consider National Forests as
‘implementation pilots’ from which to transfer learnings to the larger percentage of privately owned lands.
•
It is not clear what is meant by open space. Work with local land owners, counties and cities to develop a common understanding of open space and why it is important.
•
Collaborating with partners on conserving open space is key to the success of the National
Strategy. The Forest Service cannot ‘go it alone’. Be aware of who the partners are and what their strengths are. Work through them where possible, and serve as a clearing house to inform others on what resources exist. Train Forest Service staff to collaborate.
Existing Forest Service Programs
•
Forest Service rules regarding Life Estate planning are restrictive and deter land transfers.
Consider relaxing or changing this attitude to enable more flexibility in the land transfer process.
•
Devote more funding to and promote the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) and Forest
Stewardship and Forest Land Enhancement Programs (FLEP). Demonstrate the outcomes from these programs.
Effective Programs in the Past
•
Reactivate the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP). Make a better link between forests and rangeland.
•
Make use of tools like the ‘blue line’ maps (Forest Service map of in holdings showing priority tracts and those that are available for exchange). Encourage field staff to share these maps.
•
Reactivate the 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.
•
Resource Conservation & Development Councils (RCDs) have been successful in the past because they stimulate economic activity.
•
Revive the bulleted listing of all applicable USDA programs, and keep the list updated.
Suggestions for Potential New Programs and Approaches
•
Devote more funds to strengthen recreational land management. Improved access to recreational lands and improved trails will help to stimulate the economy in and around these areas.
10

•
Take the lead in initiating and supporting cross-boundary management efforts to help address private land needs adjacent to National Forest land.
•
Lobby for tax incentives that encourage private land owners to conserve open space.
•
Reach out to counties and local officials to assess their interest and plans for federal land exchange. Guide them through the exchange process.
•
The market of sequestering carbon may become a tool to utilize in conserving open space.
•
Consider playing more of a role in helping to educate rural land owners about land management practices and open space priorities. As there is already a wealth of information available to the home owner, the Forest Service might serve as the ‘resource manager’ collecting and disseminating information about various programs offered by their partners, e.g., The Nature Conservancy, NatureServe, and State Forest Agencies.
Partnerships
•
Energy development, particularly in the Western and Southwestern states, encourages land conversion (e.g., for exploration and pipelines). There may be a role for the Forest Service to work with private land owners adjacent to Federal lands undergoing energy development on conserving open space and addressing other impacts of energy development.
•
Emphasize the importance of partnerships from the top down, and particularly at the District
Ranger level. District Rangers should actively seek to know their neighbors. Consider as a model the Good Neighbor Agreement utilized in CO which facilitates work across ownership boundaries.
•
Know your partners strengths and ‘let them do the work they do best’. For instance, counties, states and local fire departments are experts at managing the wildland interface.
Work through them to address this need. This was a recurring theme in the Denver session.
•
Broaden the base of potential partners in conserving open space. Land owners and decision makers responsible for critical lands are key partners. Work with and educate these individuals on the value of open space and enlist them in achieving the goals of the open space program.
•
Look for opportunities to partner with Tribal land owners. The Tribal approach to land exchange can be more efficient than that of the Federal government.
•
Within the federal role, the Forest Service could work more closely with industry as well as other stakeholders on developing ecosystem-based, forest management approaches that achieve healthy forests and are economically sound.
11

•
The Forest Service works well with stakeholders on large landscapes. A good example of this scale of activity is the Forest Service role in working with the Swan Ecosystem Center on a collaborative ecosystem approach to land management in northern Montana.
•
Some times the effectiveness of a tool is determined by how the tool is implemented and by whom. The government is not always the best agent to implement a tool. In these circumstances, the Forest Service could train partners on the use of the tool and work thought them on implementation.
Research Needs and Gaps
•
Do more research on the impacts of fragmentation. How does fragmentation of private lands impact federal lands? Does it have a negative effect on wildlife? Does the federal policy on fragmentation discourage private land owners from planning their estates in ways that might conserve open space (e.g., is the Inheritance Tax a disincentive to conserving open space?)
•
Analyze whether ecosystem services can increase the value of land sufficiently to discourage sale for development.
•
Assess the importance of connectivity provided by corridors in the open space strategy.
Increase the current knowledge about the effect of corridors on wildlife.
•
Research who owns open space that might be conserved and how best to reach them.
•
If one of the potential strategies to conserve open space is a federal government purchase of a major amount of land, research historic purchases of private lands by the federal government as part of the Land Utilization Act.
Urban Forests and the Surrounding Landscape
General Comments
•
In opening this discussion, many in the room asked “what is an urban forest”? Most did not think that urban forests were an issue for the West and were really an Eastern issue.
•
Urban forests are more of an issue in the Eastern part of the US because of the land ownership patterns, development history, population, etc. In the West, urban forests occur where the urban environment ‘meets the forest’ in states like Colorado, Montana, New
Mexico and Utah. In these areas, the challenges with urban forests may be greatest around ski towns where private land development is deliberately integrated with federal forest land.
It is in these areas where the threat of fire and the need for fire intervention become an issue.
•
The mission of the Forest Service does not support a focus on urban forests. Urban forests are unique. Most of the activity in urban forests is project-drive, done in partnership, and
12

funded by grants. Little of the work involves stewardship and management. Urban forests are not owned by the Forest Service.
•
If the Forest Service is going to focus on urban forests, staffing should be expanded to include urban planners. Staff should be familiar with urban planning to understand the dynamics of how municipalities and cities interface with and use forests.
Suggestions for Potential New Programs and Approaches
•
Consider initiating a staff exchange program where Forest Service staff from a Western state like Montana have an opportunity to partner on a forest project in an urban area. Staff from the West bring their knowledge of the value of forests (e.g., their knowledge of trees and how trees benefit the environment) in exchange for urban expertise.
•
Study international examples as well as domestic examples of urban forests. For example, in
Quito, Ecuador there is an urban forest set-aside to provide water for cities.
Partnership
•
The Front Range Fuels Treatment Partnership (FRFTP @ http://frftp.org/roundtable.htm) is an example of a successful collaborative effort in which the Forest Service was engaged to address the threat of wildfire.
Other Issues
•
Some improvements need to be made on the National Fire Plan including: increasing the amount of funding available; changing the performance measures; assuring consistent staffing; and reducing the amount of time it takes for consolidation.
•
Move land stewardship up in the list of Forest Service priorities. Revamp the Land
Acquisition Program.
13

Herman Ball
National Association of Forest Service
Retirees
ATTENDEE LIST:
Doug Robotham
Colorado State Director
Trust for Public Land
303-665-2588 dhball@juno.com
Deanne Buck
Programs Director
The Access Fund
303-545-6772 deanne@accessfund.org
Alex Dunn
Western Forestry Leadership Coalition
303-445-4364 adunn@fs.fed.us
303-837-1414 doug.robotham@tpl.org
Steve Smith
The Wilderness Society
303-650-5818 steve_smith@tws.org
Jerry Sorensen
Director, Land Asset Management
Plum Creek Timber
406-892-6479 jerry.sorensen@plumcreek.com
Nancy Fishbein
The Nature Conservancy-Denver Office
720-974-7052 bmcpeek@tnc.org
Jan Hackett
Forest Stewardship
Colorado State Forest Service
(970) 491 - 7287
Jan.Hackett@ColoState.EDU
Dan Merriman
Chief, Stream and Lake Protection Section
Colorado Water Conservation Board
303 866-3903 dan.merriman@state.co.us
Bob Paulson
Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board
605-342-4040 bpaulson@tnc.org
Doug Robinson
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
303-216-1953 drobinson@rmef.org
Kathleen Staks
Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts
303-271-1577 kstaks@cclt.org
Ron Stewart
Director
Boulder County Parks and Open Space
303-678-6278 rstewart@co.boulder.co.us
John Taylor
Chair, Forestry & Wildlife Committee
Colorado Association of Conservation
Districts
970-248-0070 jtaylor034@centurytel.net
Doug Williams
Forester
National Association of Conservation
Districts
(304) 724-1209 dewilliams@frontiernet.net
14