Executive Summary of Public Input
in response to the Federal Register Notice
In the November 13, 2006 issue of the Federal Register, the U.S. Forest Service
requested public input into the development of the Forest Service (FS) Open Space
Conservation Strategy and Implementation Plan, focusing on the agency’s role in
addressing the effects of the loss of open space on private forests; on the National Forests
and Grasslands and surrounding landscape; and on forests in cities, suburbs, and towns.
Input was requested on programs, research, partnerships, and/or policy recommendations.
The first comment deadline of December 13, 2006 was later extended to December 29,
2006, allowing approximately seven weeks for public comment (See attached FRN/Vol.
71, No. 240 for full announcement).
The FS received nearly 9,500 responses from the public. Over 9,200 of the comments
were mass emails that contained the same recommendation: funding of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund at $900 million annually, funding of the Forest Legacy
Program at $200 million annually, and taking special action to address the immediate
impacts of development on National Forest System lands. The FS also received over 200
unique comments from citizens, legislators, local organizations, and national
organizations from across the country and around the world. The vast majority of the
comments relay overwhelming support for the strategy while a minority (less than 10
percent of comments) express outright opposition.
Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the comments received are overwhelmingly positive
and supportive of the Forest Service engaging in open space conservation. While many
of those view the Forest Service as a valued partner, some also look to the Forest Service
to be a “catalytic leader” on open space conservation. The Forest Service is described as
the only entity whose skills, resources, mission, and interests cross the economic, social,
and ecological considerations of conserving open space. Many respondents look to the
Forest Service to provide leadership in the following ways:
¾ Act as a facilitator/convener with partners
¾ Conduct research, assessments, and mapping to prioritize and address open space
needs
¾ Convene a range of stakeholders around landscape level planning and stewardship
¾ Provide technical expertise to state and local governments, non-profit
organizations, and private landowners, and work with those parties to protect
forest resources
¾ Support the development of markets for ecosystem services and forest products
through research, pilot programs, and other work
¾ Identify priority lands for protection
¾ Educate the public on the importance of forest resources and open space
¾ Practice and promote conservation-oriented, sustainable land management on
public and private lands
¾ Coordinate programs and work with other federal, state, local, and private
conservation initiatives
¾ Ensure that Forest Service policies support open space values, particularly those
that apply to National Forests and Grasslands
Supporters affirm that the Forest Service should work closely with partners of all types in
developing and carrying out a national strategy on open space conservation. Many also
emphasize the value of a national landscape-scale strategy with locally-based
implementation. Overall, comments fall into four general subject areas: Landowner
Assistance; Local and Regional Planning; National Forests and Grasslands Management;
and Priority Lands to Protect.
Landowner Assistance
A major driver of land use change is the economic viability (or lack thereof) of private
forests. Private landowners need incentives and assistance in order to maintain forests as
forests. Comments indicate that the continuation and expansion of education, outreach,
technical assistance, and cost-share and other financial assistance are critical to open
space conservation. Comments express strong support for current State and Private
Forestry programs – including the Forest Legacy Program, Forest Stewardship Program,
and the Urban & Community Forestry Program – and also identified significant and
growing gaps in landowner assistance. Forest owners also look to the Forest Service to
help promote and develop markets for forest products and ecosystem services and to
support innovative conservation techniques in the future.
Local and Regional Planning
Local and regional planning is repeatedly mentioned as a critical arena requiring Forest
Service involvement and guidance. Many are eager to see the Forest Service be actively,
and proactively, involved in regional, state, and local planning decisions, both as an
information resource and a partner in planning. Suggestions include: providing research
and GIS mapping data; consulting on proposed subdivision projects, mitigation and
potential impacts; identifying local economic, social and ecological priorities; working
with localities to assess and update land use policies; and convening stakeholder forums
on state and local growth management. Several respondents note the critical role of
Forest Supervisors and District Rangers, and other District level staff, to be involved in
local planning processes.
One comment shares a particularly successful partnership between the Forest Service and
Summit County in Colorado. Here, Summit County and the Dillon Ranger District staff
have worked closely together to protect priority lands adjacent to NFS lands. The
District’s regular participation in local and regional planning has ensured that local
planning decisions augment, rather than detract, from the open space benefits provided by
the National Forest. Developing working relationships has amplified the county’s and
the Ranger District’s effectiveness in conserving open space.
National Forests and Grasslands Management
Both those in support of and opposed to the Forest Service embarking on an open space
strategy and implementation plan convey the importance of sustainable management of
current Forest Service lands. Many cite cases of poorly managed FS lands. These
respondents question how and why the agency proposes to involve itself with private
lands if it cannot properly care for its own lands. The comments also present a range of
views on forest management. Some ask the Forest Service to expand wilderness and
roadless areas while others reinforce the need for lands available for timber and
recreation needs. Whether supportive or opposed, nearly all the comments agree that the
Forest Service needs to act as a model land manager. From some respondents’
perspectives, the agency is not doing that now.
Priority Lands to Protect
The need to identify and prioritize lands for protection resounds from the comments.
Many recommend prioritizing private in-holdings within NFS boundaries and private
lands surrounding FS lands in order to create a buffer surrounding those lands. Others
emphasize the need to protect critical habitat, fish and wildlife corridors, watersheds, and
private lands within the wildland-urban interface. Many wish to see the Forest Service
contribute to local, regional, and national green infrastructure by protecting these
ecologically sensitive areas. Several comment that the Forest Service should also focus
efforts on assisting states and local communities conserve and manage urban and
community forest resources in order to foster landscape-scale conservation.
Opposition to Open Space Strategy and Implementation Plan
A few themes permeate the opposition to a Forest Service (FS) Open Space Conservation
Strategy and Implementation Plan. Some feel that the Forest Service is over-reaching its
primary mandate to manage the National Forests, especially in a time of short budgets,
lack of road and trail maintenance, and devastating wildfires. These respondents
recommend that rather than interfere with private lands, the Forest Service should focus
on National Forest management. Others question the Forest Service’s legal authority to
work on open space conservation on private lands. Such comments suggest a lack of
public understanding of the Forest Service’s role and authority that extends beyond the
federally owned National Forests and Grasslands. Other concerns address the need to
maintain the availability of Forest Service land for recreation and economic uses (namely
timber). And finally, a small minority of respondents disagree that the loss of open space
is a threat, and see no need for the Forest Service to further disrupt private land
management.