Tools for Land Conservation:
Regional areas--to what extent will there be cooperation with counties other than Larimer County (i.e., Weld, Boulder). Need a common vision with Weld and Boulder counties as well.

Criteria--what work is being done to inventory areas and include in evaluation the less visible groups of flora and fauna (e.g., snails, mosses, little fishes)?--could lose these areas that are important to these groups. Baseline data needs to be a "bioblitz" (include all flora and fauna groups).

Viewsheds and scenic values should be part of selection criteria.
Emphasize ecological values.

Pursue opportunities with the U.S. Forest Service to swap out acreages.

Who brings money and who manages?

What are the priorities for protection – recreation, habitat, agriculture, views?

Allocate some land conservation monies to evaluate sites for their ecological value.

Use modeling of land development trends to help determine priority.

Instead of allocating funds by region do it by risk.

Prioritize areas that are most at risk to lose the land the price to increase.

Flexible, safe.

Marketing push to sellers.

Don't be rigid.

Willing seller may not mean it's not on the market – actively seek willing sellers.

At risk and opportunity are equal factors.

Habitat/ecological value needs to be assessed on total spectrum of flora and fauna, not just the big dynamic species (e.g., raptors).

It's important to keep partnering to acquire these lands.

The goal for Meadow Springs should be conservation easement not outright acquisition.
Management of Meadow Springs as a natural area needs to be addressed. Get some bison out there.

Terminology of "natural areas" and "open lands" needs to be addressed in this update. City Plan calls it "open lands" – need to define the terms.

Acquiring open lands limits sprawl, clusters development and contributes to opportunities for public transit.

There seems to be a changing emphasis toward open lands which is broader than natural areas. County has open lands program – should be integrated with City goals.

City needs to become more proactive in finding "willing sellers". Owners of desirable land should be actively recruited so that lots of land is in play, which may keep the market cost lower.

Selection criteria needs to be identified for people.

Community Separators and Local can emphasize conservation easements. If conservation easement, there should be access where appropriate.

Top priority should be to preserve wildlife, it is what we are most in danger of losing. Protecting wildlife means many of competing ends will be met. Thus corridors and biodiversity hotspots are most important.

I like the approach of dividing the areas into the three focus area types. I also like the idea of splitting the effort equally in the first time period and then shifting more effort to the regional conservation effort in the latter time period. By that time, we will need to be looking more a the regional scale, before those opportunities are lost. So, this is a great start and I look forward to seeing more.

Why not join with County and NR advising board, Ag. Advising board, Open lands, Land Trusts. And integrate working landscapes into the mission statement (i.e. helping minimize loss of agricultural lands and water while creating separators, habitat).

Do more press releases, marketing, education and public relations – you don't get the credit you deserve!

No information on sources of funding. No information on cost to maintain vs. outright purchase dollars. Would like to see a map that shows county parks – open lands, trust lands, other discrete parcels to see how they relate to the maps provided.

One underused land conservation tool is purchase and lease back- resale to conservation buyers or with deed restrictions or sans development rights. OSNA database might track potential parcels and promote this lower cost technique.

Lands need to be evaluated/inventoried to determine their priority for acquisition.

Contiguity between open spaces should be a priority.

Make attractive offers to landowners in priority areas. It sounds like this program has ample funds to work with the special tax, so competitive offers need to be made to landowners for priority lands to fend off commercial developers. Also, how about really featuring some land conservation success stories so far and publicize them with landowners to show what others have done, and hopefully influence their decision to be part of land conservation?

Use creative ideas to buy property and spread the financial burden out over time. Consider bonding. Leverage all appropriate partners.

What are the priorities? Focus local acquisitions on the Poudre corridor due to other local/separator areas have largely been acquired. Mining along the river is causing a transition of land use. There should be a community separator between FC and LaPorte.

Maintain habitat connectivity along the Poudre River and connect to adjacent habitats.

Poudre River corridor should be a priority.

The three areas should be four areas: local area #5 is very different from 1,2,3,4, and 6. I am in favor of giving equal weight and value to local if local means 1-4 and 6 but not 5. Priorities should be lands that provide connectivity, corridors and habitats.

Understanding the priorities of partners in acquisition of regional areas. Fort Collins' money is going to preserve land managed in cooperation with other parties – county, other municipalities. Who gets management control?

What preservation/conservation priorities are being used to determine the allocations? Info used? Inventory of lands per type? 03-08 allocations seem arbitrary (flexible). Recognizing both need for ability to buy lands as opportunities becomes available (fragmented lands) and importance of continuity corridors in natural areas.

Balance needs and wants of taxpayers.

Use open lands for renewable energy infrastructure – photo-voltaics, wind and bio fuels.

I'd like to see an overlay of the City Open Lands Master Plan with County Open Lands Plan. If they (county) focus on regional, maybe we can focus more on locally and for community separators.

I'd like to see more focus on the northwest area between Fort Collins and LaPorte along North Shields and North Taft Hill – particularly of land in conservation easements.

How about using private sectors brokers who go out and broker purchases without the seller knowing it's the city – you might get more done quicker and cheaper.

The expenditure of money in 2003-2008 should prioritize those lands most at risk of development and with the highest natural values or other appropriate values. This might suggest more focus on local and community separators in the early years.

Be very flexible with the allocation of funding.

The "Glade Reservoir" should be looked at as an important parcel to be saved.

Funding allocation should have much less emphasis on local, regional, community separator geography. Conservation should be prioritized based on level of "risk" regardless of where it is. This means that there must be more flexibility so that important land in danger of development or subdivision needs to get highest priority.

The ability to use open land protection as a means to influence the urban form of the region around Fort Collins should become a very important criterion for prioritizing conservation.

I voted for "Open Space Yes" because I want to preserve or conserve land for future generations.

Toot your own horn. Get regular press coverage as you proceed toward completing various components of your program.

Conservation easements would be an excellent method to protect vast open spaces with potential purchase down the road.

With the resources here at hand here in Fort Collins, I feel we have an incredible opportunity to do something extraordinary for/in the lives of our residents. For example, could your department take the lead in formulating a "green infrastructure" plan for the developed portions of the city -- a plan that would look across city agency jurisdictions and see the natural systems that are right out our doors? Could you help forge a vision for what nature could mean in our city. Pyle is right. More distant conserved nature is important, but greatly diminished if we have an "extinction of experience" right where we live. We spend most of our lives in the city. Don't we want to enrich the experiences we have right here? In many cases we are not talking about land acquisition, but unified management by city agencies that, with a shared vision, could more readily look at natural systems as systems. I live near Spring Creek and use it in teaching at the university. I can see what would be accomplished if there was a corridor-wide vision that integrated the efforts of those working on flood control, parks, natural areas, trails, water quality,... Because of my work and research in planning and natural resources around the world I know what can be accomplished for a community when greater attention and care are given to these places close at hand. Let's not overlook them.

I believe the plan should include an investment trust fund strategy for long term maintenance (not just spending on land acquisition). The possible acreage is astonishing which concerns me that future tax dollars will be taken from core city services to maintain land almost half the size of the city itself!

With the current city budget deficit and lack of funding for key city infrastructure...I don't believe the taxpayers understand the amount of money going to Open Space while other needs are not getting funded.