The Forest Setting

Forests presently cover approximately 25 percent of the world’s land surface, excluding Greenland and Antarctica. Two-thirds of this important renewable natural resource lies in North America, South America, Europe and Russia. In the early 1990s, industrial wood products from North America and Europe alone contributed a robust 2 percent of Global Domestic Product (GDP), and wood-based fuels remain the primary sources of energy for many countries.

The United States is particularly blessed with forests. About one-third of its total land area (730 million acres) is woodland. The proportion rises to nearly two-thirds east of the Mississippi River. Contrary to prevailing public opinion, two out of every three acres of U.S. forest is in private, not governmental, hands. Some 9 million nonindustrial private woodland owners control the future of these forests, a number that is rising steadily as land changes hands and is fragmented into smaller and smaller parcels.

In New England, these trends are even more pronounced. Of the region’s 32 million acres of land base, approximately 80 percent (24 million acres) is now in forest, and 96 percent of this forest is controlled privately. In 1993, by Forest Service estimates, 737,000 owners held forested land in the six-state region, and two-thirds of these tracts were less than 10 acres in size. Newer landowners are frequently urban emigrants, more tied to technology and human-designed infrastructure than to the land. However, they tend to have a nascent interest in the natural world and the potential to become both skillful resource stewards and passionate advocates for the environment.

The Evolution of ENFOR

In the spring of 1999, the idea of distance learning courses, accessible on home computers and targeted to the nonindustrial private sector in New England, seemed a promising way to tap the potential of these landowners. The New England Governors Conference, the U.S. Forest Service and the Lincoln Institute agreed to jointly sponsor a study that might point the way to developing such a course for the Institute’s distance learning program, Lincoln Education Online (LEO). A distinguished group of New England forestry and education leaders was recruited to serve as advisors. The organizational meeting of what came to be called ENFOR (ENvironmental FORestry) occurred in December 1999. Seven additional meetings were held subsequently over an eighteen-month period, including a regionwide Colloquium on Distance Learning and the Forest Environment held at the New England Center in Durham, New Hampshire, and attended by some forty selected New England forestry officials, educators and landowners. Specific ENFOR work products have included the following reports:

• Gail Michaels of the U.S. Forest Service prepared a summary paper, Characteristics of New England Forest Landowners and Implications for Computer-based Learning, which found that at least 40 percent of New England households are already computer-equipped, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
• An inventory of 66 existing distance learning resources relating to forestry, Distance Learning for the Forestry Environment, prepared by the Quebec-Labrador Foundation, found that none of the sites, of which 31 offered either online courses for credit or courses with online components, appeared to fulfill ENFOR’s objectives in their entirety.
• A one-page questionnaire was developed and sent to 5,000 known forest landowners to evaluate the market for distance learning. An astonishing 10 percent of the owners responded, requesting further information on how to improve their forest, how to protect it for the future, and how to find programs and services. Since about 90 percent of respondents indicated they had already done some work on their land, it seemed likely that any information provided through home-computer-based means would be put to work promptly on individual woodlots throughout New England.

A Woodland Walk

Encouraged by these explorations and consultations, ENFOR commissioned Brian Donahue, an environmental historian at Brandeis University, to prepare a 30-minute pilot course built around a computerized walk through a typical New England forest. In this course, a New England landowner is first introduced to the place of his woodland in the world, the region, the state, the county and the community, using supportive maps of cultural features, land use and protected areas in a sample town. An attractive “woodswalker” icon helps the user navigate. “Poison ivy” and “chestnut” symbols highlight points of particular concern and promise. The walk emphasizes the role of forests as ecological systems, as sources of products and values, and as places where interconnectedness and thoughtful stewardship are needed. Once the virtual walk is completed, the owner is encouraged to take a walk through his or her own woods, perhaps seeing for the first time its attributes and potential.

Following a successful test of the pilot course in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, it is now being adapted for use in other parts of the region, and by the end of 2001 should be available throughout Rhode Island. The Lincoln Institute has asked Donahue to expand his introductory material to include five additional topics for future versions of the course. The Institute has also encouraged Charles Thompson of the New England Forestry Foundation to produce an interconnected, electronic version of his popular book, Working with Your Woodland, to serve as a second-level course for those wishing to apply more active forest management practices to their properties.

Regional Course Development Center

Stimulated by the ENFOR inquiry, Vermont extension forester Thom J. McEvoy has proposed the development of a $4.9 million curriculum and course development center at the University of Vermont, capable of serving the needs of the entire New England region. The proposal is now pending before national funding sources. McEvoy envisions courses and services that are easy to use, amenable to either broadband or conventional Internet access, coupled with streaming audio and video, and capable of archiving information specific to a particular woodland site in an individualized “portfolio.” The center’s courses would range broadly from conventional biological, ecological and economic topics to practical information on how to plan, manage and secure small forests. In keeping with the broad view of the forest as both a physical and cultural environment, the curriculum will include course offerings in such areas as history, literature, folklore, art and even music.

ENFOR Findings and Recommendations

At their final meeting in July 2001, the ENFOR advisors urged the formation of a successor forest education council to encourage the use of distance learning materials in practice and to coordinate their delivery to landowners through cooperating organizations and agencies. Charles Thompson agreed to organize and chair such a council. The advisors also reached several conclusions based upon the results of the ENFOR inquiry.

• New England is an established and recognized region, well-suited both environmentally and technologically for the use of distance learning techniques.
• Its forest resource, extensive both in acreage and the proportion held in private ownership, represents a unique facet of the environment on which to focus such approaches.
• Since New Englanders have a curious mix of concern for the well-being of the forest coupled with a pragmatic willingness to have its products and uses remain available for humankind, any distance learning program must deal with the forest as a total environment, recognizing the full range of its social, ecological, economic, aesthetic, and recreational uses and values.
• To be effective, forestry distance learning programs must be tailored to the individual, be sensitive to local conditions and concerns, be arrayed as a set of voluntary options, and be delivered to the extent possible through existing organizations and agencies.
• The advisors expressed their appreciation of the seeming willingness of diverse public and private institutions to work together collaboratively, as evidenced by the ENFOR project.

Distance learning seems to offer the distinct promise of helping landowners in urbanizing regions serve as more active forest managers and conservers and, collectively, become a new army of forest-wise citizens committed to ensuring the future of New England’s important forest heritage. In pursuing this goal, New England may once again be on the threshold of serving as a leader for the nation as a whole.

Charles H. W. Foster is an adjunct research fellow and lecturer at the Center for Science and International Affairs of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He was formerly dean of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and secretary of environmental affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

References

Foster, Charles, editor. 1984. Experiments in Bioregionalism. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

1998. Stepping Back to Look Forward: A History of the Massachusetts Forest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Michaels, Gail. 2000. Characteristics of New England Forest Landowners and Implications for Computer-based Learning. (March). Durham, NH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry Division.

Quebec-Labrador Foundation. 2000. Distance Learning for the Forestry Environment. (March) Ipswich, MA: Quebec-Labrador Foundation.

Thompson, Charles. 1996. Working with Your Woodland. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Most urban areas are experiencing significant disinvestment in older industrial-warehouse areas, along with a net loss of employment, tax base and related activity. The few recent surveys done to measure vacant industrial land suggest that, in Northeastern and Midwestern cities, 15 to 20 percent of industrial sites are inactive. In major cities such as Chicago or Philadelphia, vacant land can amount to several hundred parcels comprising several thousand acres. Often there are significant financial liabilities associated with the ownership of these “brownfield” sites due to the high incidence of contamination and related safety and environmental problems.

Vacant or underused properties are often located in areas suffering generally from physical decline, concentrations of low-income households and high crime rates. Thus, older cities are faced with the dual challenge of improving the capacity of the resident population to participate productively in the labor force and restoring the competitive market standing of areas with declining fiscal capacity.

While recent economic changes have resulted in a net decline in business activity in older industrial areas, many of these sites have the potential for residential, commercial or office reuse, with varying degrees of investment required. However, reuse is often constrained by factors including fragmentation in ownership, risks associated with the ownership or use of contaminated property, and the high market risks associated with front-end investment in environmental assessments, market studies, land assembly and area planning.

Currently, federal laws and regulations dealing with contaminated sites add to the high risk for new owners, investors and users who might otherwise contribute to reinvestment in and reuse of these areas. Also, federal and state clean up programs tend to operate independently of concerted area-wide redevelopment strategies and programs.

Special Situations for Industrial Reuse

Unfortunately, examples of successful reuse approaches which effectively orchestrate federal, state and local government policies and actions with private landowner, investor and business development actions are limited and tend to be concentrated in a few special situations. One circumstance involves a strong private owner such as a financially healthy major corporation which cannot avoid the liabilities associated with the site yet cannot afford the adverse publicity of simply abandoning it.

Another situation is when a strong private reuse market for the site creates a high reuse value relative to the current “as is” value. This typically involves waterfront or other property adjacent to growing downtowns or sites which happen to fit the development needs for a major, publicly subsidized facility such as a new stadium or convention center. In these situations, the private or public reuse benefit calls forth the financial and political resources necessary to acquire, clean up and redevelop the land.

However, most vacant or underused former industrial-warehouse properties do not meet these conditions. Generally the demand for reuse is weak or declining, in part due to deteriorating neighborhood conditions. Because of low land values, even for clean, ready-to-develop sites, finding investors for either equity or debt investment in acquisition, renovation or new development is problematic. These areas typically require more concerted efforts involving business, government and civic group participation.

Site-Specific vs Integrated Redevelopment

While interest in brownfields reuse has increased over the last several years, policy discussions at the national level and programs in the states tend to approach brownfields as a site-specific contamination cleanup problem rather than an area-wide reuse problem within the context of the metropolitan economy.

The case for integrating site treatment into a broader redevelopment strategy can be argued from several angles. One is simply that giving priority to cleanup expenditures may do little to foster area reuse and may preclude the more effective use of public funds. If the contamination is contained within a small area and the public can be protected from any potential harm, then area reuse may be more effectively fostered by focusing on the removal of other constraints to investment. These constraints may include improving access, removing unsightly buildings, installing landscape improvements, clearing sites of obsolete structures, and subdividing the area to better meet current facility demands.

Another argument for integrating site cleanup into an overall redevelopment strategy is that the cleanup costs are difficult to finance in a situation where the value of clean sites is very low. If an area-wide redevelopment effort focuses initially on increasing the overall demand to reuse sites, putting vacant clean sites into use will improve the demand/supply balance. Then, the cleanup costs can in most cases be funded out of the increased site value, and private owners of such sites will be motivated to clean up the sites voluntarily. Area-wide financing schemes using tax increment financing (TIF) and special taxing and benefit districts can also facilitate the funding required for remediation and indemnification against any future liabilities.

New Models and Strategies

The Lincoln Institute, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is undertaking a research project to explore the problem of recycling urban industrial areas which fall outside of the special situations described above. The study builds on recent work conducted by the Lincoln Institute, the Northeast-Midwest Institute, the author and others who have researched reuse potential and demand/supply constraints in industrial areas. Some examples are the American Street industrial area in Philadelphia, the Collinwood area in Cleveland, the Southwest industrial area in Detroit, the south side of Chicago and several areas in Pittsburgh.

Research directed at discovering common opportunities and constraints and the related strategies most effective at addressing different types of situations is very limited. Therefore, our approach is to conduct a broad survey of industrial reuse markets based on a review of existing reports and interviews with local experts, and then to develop a series of in-depth case studies to assess alternative reuse strategies appropriate to common types of situations.

Each case study will include a survey and assessment of the city-wide situation and the conditions in various industrial subareas. Model solutions will focus on a single subarea chosen to represent a combination of factors, including the relevance of that case to other cities and the relative importance of the subarea to its city’s overall reuse plan. In each case, a group of development professionals familiar with the local real estate market will be involved in assessing opportunities and constraints, alternative strategies and implementation measures. Ultimately, our objective is to identify changes in federal, state and local techniques, policies and programs that would support the implementation of the strategies being developed.

J. Thomas Black, visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is an urban development economist and the principal investigator for this project. The study is in its early stages and the author invites your insights, ideas and suggestions on the subject, particularly for case examples demonstrating opportunities, general strategies, particular techniques, financing methods or organizational structures that work well.

FYI

The Collinwood Yard in northeast Cleveland is a 48-acre, mainly vacant industrial site which has lost 20,000 jobs since 1970. Its access to Interstate 90 and the rail lines is a key element in the revitalization of the area.

The Union Seventy Center in St. Louis is a multi-tenant industrial/warehouse facility occupying a remodeled 2.7 million square foot General Motors assembly plant. It is part of a 171-acre redevelopment project which demonstrates the reuse and investment potential of older urban industrial areas.

In June 2003 the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Sonoran Institute established a Joint Venture project to assist diverse audiences in improving state trust land administration in the American West. The goal of this partnership project is to ensure that conservation, collaborative land use planning, and efficient and effective asset management on behalf of state trust land beneficiaries are integral elements of how these lands are managed. The two institutes seek to utilize their core competencies to broaden the range of information and policy options available to improve state trust land management. This article introduces the Joint Venture and describes some of the work now under way in Arizona and Montana.

State trust lands are a phenomenon that dates back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1785. With this ordinance, the U.S. Congress established a policy of granting land to states when they entered the Union as an asset to generate funding to support the public education system, a fundamental state responsibility. Starting with Ohio in 1785 and ending with Arizona and New Mexico in 1910, each new state received a set of federal lands that, under federal enabling legislation and the corresponding state constitution, were to be held in trust for the benefit of the public schools. The trust mandates established by the U.S. Congress and the states are clear: to generate revenue to support the public schools and other institutions. In some cases there are other minor institutional beneficiaries as well, but the public schools (K–12) are by far the largest beneficiary throughout the state trust land system. That singularity of purpose continues today and distinguishes state trust lands and the state programs that administer them from other types of public lands.

While Congress intended state trust lands to be perpetual, the lawmakers expected that over time some lands would be sold to produce revenue. Initially Congress provided little guidance to states on how they should manage their state trust lands. Many states that entered the Union soon after 1785 quickly sold all or most of those lands for profit, and today little remains of that heritage. Because of these actions, Congress placed increasingly stringent requirements on new states in order to limit the use of state trust lands. Since most western states entered the Union in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, they retain most of the original state trust lands designated at the time of statehood.

Today these lands continue to be managed to generate income for the authorized beneficiaries. This revenue is either made available in the year in which it was generated (typically from leasing activities) or, in the case of outright sale of land or nonrenewable resources, deposited into a permanent fund that generates annual income for the beneficiaries. In Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming these permanent funds or endowments are in excess of one billion dollars each.

What Is a Trust?

A trust is a legal relationship in which one party holds property for the benefit of another.

There are three participants in this relationship: a grantor or “settlor,” who establishes the trust and provides the property to be held in trust; a trustee, who is charged by the settlor with the responsibility of managing the trust in keeping with the settlor’s instructions; and a beneficiary, who receives the benefits of the trust.

The trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to manage the property held in trust (the trust corpus) in keeping with the instructions of the settlor and for the benefit of the beneficiary. This fiduciary responsibility can be enforced by the beneficiary if the trustee fails to meet the obligations outlined in the trust documents.

Fifteen western states continue to own and manage appreciable amounts of state trust land (see Table 1). The nine states with the largest and most significant holdings are the initial focus of the Lincoln Institute and Sonoran Institute Joint Venture: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (see Figure 1). Collectively these states manage more than 40 million acres of state trust lands. The landholdings are as diverse as the states that manage them and include coastal forests in Washington, mountaintops in Montana and low deserts in Arizona.

Traditionally these lands have been managed almost exclusively for natural resource production, with the leasing and sale of natural products being the principal sources of revenue. The reliance of state trust land management on natural resource extraction is understandable in the context of the natural resource–based economies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But today, as the West continues to urbanize and the region’s economies shift to the information age, trust land managers are recognizing a need to broaden the land use activities of their trust land portfolios. Invariably that means rearranging the portfolio from one that is overly reliant on natural resource extraction to one that recognizes the real estate value associated with commercial, industrial and residential development, as well as recreation and conservation.

Like many land use decisions, particularly in areas experiencing explosive growth, state trust land administration is increasingly controversial. As on federal public lands, traditional uses (i.e., cropland, grazing and timber production, and oil, gas, coal and mineral extraction) are at odds with public interests in recreation and natural open space. Efforts to sell and lease lands for commercial and residential development can create tensions between a state agency acting as a trustee and a local community vested with managing growth. Balancing the protection of the public values inherent in many of these lands with traditional and new uses, all within the context of the state trust’s fiduciary responsibilities, is a challenge for trust land managers.

At the same time, population pressures in the West have increased demands on public education funding. State trust lands are one obvious source of revenue to meet these funding demands, which in turn may generate even more pressure on trust land managers who as trustees of a permanent trust need to achieve both short- and long-term financial returns from the trust’s assets. An additional complexity is that the application of trust principles varies among the states, based in part on differing state trust land enabling legislation created in each state at the time of statehood.

Recognizing the value of bringing diverse interests together and providing solid information to stakeholders and key decision makers in land use planning and development environments, the Lincoln Institute and Sonoran Institute Joint Venture project seeks to

• facilitate efforts to modernize state trust land laws and regulations in key western states
• foster education and research efforts that focus on key issues related to state trust land administration
• increase public awareness of the resource and economic values of state trust lands along with the impacts of state trust land management decisions on local communities, including implications for public finance
• develop and implement on-the-ground model projects designed to explore innovative approaches to collaborative land use planning and conservation management of state trust lands
• provide relevant technical information and tools to decision makers and agency staff involved in state trust land management.

Trust Land Reform in Arizona

Arizona is in the midst of a three-year discussion among diverse stakeholders to reform its laws governing state trust lands. Arizona is noteworthy because the burgeoning growth of Phoenix and Tucson is reaching significant tracts of state trust lands. These lands are some of the most valuable real estate holdings in the Intermountain West and comprise 12 percent of the land in the state. Unlike many other western states, Arizona has long recognized the real estate value of its holdings and has an active real estate disposition program that has sold thousands of acres into the urban marketplace. The revenue from these sales has been deposited into the permanent fund of the state trust entity, and the income from the fund is directed to the trust’s beneficiaries. The permanent fund is now valued at more than one billion dollars and is predicted to double in value over the next 10 years.

In the mid-1990s state trust land sales in metropolitan Phoenix came to a screeching halt when the development interests of the Arizona State Land Department encountered conflict with the goals of local communities interested in preserving some of this land as natural open space. Attempts to accommodate local concerns through state legislation have met with mixed results due to the strictures of the Arizona enabling act and state constitution. Several key court decisions interpreting these laws have constrained the Arizona State Land Department from conserving open space or enabling the department to achieve the highest and best use on these lands when sold or leased for residential and commercial purposes. An attempt in 2000 to secure voter approval to revise aspects of Arizona’s constititution and modernize state trust land management failed at the ballot box in the face of unanimous opposition from the conservation community.

This situation has set the stage for a diverse group of interests to convene in the hopes of developing a comprehensive reform proposal that the Arizona legislature and governor’s office will consider. Even with their support, the final package will need voter approval to amend the state constitution, followed by changes in the federal enabling act that will require the approval of the U.S. Congress.

The Joint Venture directed its initial efforts toward working with the conservation organizations participating in the stakeholder group. We provided analyses of the current laws and proposed changes, with assistance from the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, to help the conservation community promote a constructive agenda that has been incorporated into the package. In addition, our information related to land use planning was useful to other stakeholders in developing elements of the package that will ensure more collaborative planning between the Arizona State Land Department and local governments charged with land planning responsibility, while also increasing the range of tools available to local communities to protect natural open space on state trust lands.

We are also working with officials from the City of Tucson (the second largest city in Arizona) and the Arizona State Land Department to assist their efforts to develop 10,000 acres in the city’s growth corridor. This Houghton Area Master Plan includes more than 7,500 acres of state trust lands. Our work is directed toward the planning effort by providing examples of smart growth development at the urban edge. A key element is to document evidence that greenfield projects are not necessarily synonymous with sprawl and that a number of examples of recent master-planned communities at the urban edge are incorporating smart growth elements, such as interconnected open space for active and passive recreational use, pedestrian orientation, mixed-use development accessible to public transit, and a diverse mix of housing types, sizes and prices. As important, these progressive master-planned communities are achieving success in the marketplace, which is a preeminent concern of the Arizona State Land Department.

While the City of Tucson, in partnership with the Sonoran Institute, is working to promote infill and brownfield development, even under the most optimistic of scenarios more than 50 percent of the city’s explosive growth will be greenfield development. If successful, this master-planning effort will guide development on 50 square miles of state trust lands within the city and can serve as a local land use planning model for other state trust lands.

Trust Lands in Montana

The Joint Venture has also initiated an assessment of policy issues affecting state trust lands in Montana. Working with a local advisory group chartered by the Department of Natural Resources (the manager of Montana’s state trust lands), we have provided information that will help guide land use planning on 12,000 acres of state trust lands in Flathead County at the gateway to Glacier National Park. This effort will serve as a template for future department plans for land uses other than grazing and forest management. For example, the department has shown an interest in generating revenue from leasing land for conservation, recreational, residential, commercial and industrial uses. Increasing interest in these “special uses” is creating a paradigm shift in how the Department of Natural Resources interacts with local governments and how local governments interact with state trust lands.

As growth expands throughout much of western and central Montana, the department seeks to capture additional revenue opportunities through the development of special uses. While local communities are recognizing that state trust lands can be a source of economic growth and can contribute positively to meeting growth demands, they are also requiring those land uses to be responsive to local community values and concerns. Sound, objective land planning and valuation information are essential to the development of policies that will guide Montana state trust land management in the future.

Final Comments

In the brief time since the Joint Venture was established there has been no shortage of issues that could benefit from better information and collaboration among diverse parties. This fall the Lincoln Institute and the Sonoran Institute will convene a small group of experts from academia and the public and private sectors to identify the issues of greatest concern that will guide further research efforts. Our work in Arizona and Montana will continue as we seek to develop a broad-based approach to increasing awareness about state trust lands. The successful resolution of the issues affecting state trust land management will benefit not only local school children, but also many conservationists, developers, ranchers and businesses throughout the West.

Reference

Souder, Jon, and Sally K. Fairfax. 1996. State trust lands: History, management and sustainable use. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Andy Laurenzi is the program director for state trust lands at the Sonoran Institute, a nonprofit organization established in 1990 to bring diverse people together to accomplish shared conservation goals. The Sonoran Institute is based in Tucson, Arizona, with offices in Phoenix and Bozeman, Montana (www.sonoran.org).

Harmful impacts of sprawl in terms of air and water pollution, waste of energy and time, traffic congestion and highway accidents, lack of affordable housing, increased flooding, and loss of biodiversity have been widely documented (Platt 2004, ch. 6). Also, the fiscal impacts of sprawl on local communities have been evaluated by researchers at the Brookings Institution, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and elsewhere.

Slaying the “beast of sprawl” has been the Holy Grail of planners and land use lawyers for decades, stimulating the development of new tools like planned unit development (PUD), cluster zoning, subdivision exactions, preferential taxation of farm and forest land, transfer of development rights (TDR), state land use planning, and growth management. Reflecting the antisprawl fervor of the 1970s, a prominent policy report titled The Use of Land euphorically declared:

“There is a new mood in America. Increasingly, citizens are asking what urban growth will add to the quality of their lives. They are questioning the way relatively unconstrained, piecemeal urbanization is changing their communities and are rebelling against the traditional processes of government and the marketplace.” (Rockefeller Brothers Fund 1973, 33)