scoring-guidance-FY26.docx

Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program Panel Scoring Guidance (Updated August 2026) Score each application based on the information provided in the application materials. The scores shall be based on the four criteria described below. If there are additional notes or justifications for your score specific to the project, please include that feedback on each criterion, or the project as a whole, in your score sheet/notes. Our intent is to share general and specific feedback with applicants to develop interest and the size and quality of the future applicant pool.

Additional consideration will be given to proposals that support development of domestically sourced timber and wood products, in support of Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production.

Questions or comments regarding the scoring process should be directed to sm.fs.cfp@usda.gov.

1) Community Benefits: Use a score of 0-20 to rate community benefits, where 20 is reserved for projects that have all the attributes (economic, environmental, educational, recreational) and provide exceptional benefits that are specific to the lands to be acquired, planned for in each attribute, and supported by data, evidence and/or local knowledge. It may be easier to think of the scale as 0-5 for each of the suggested benefit attributes of a community forest including, but not limited to:

a) Economic benefits including but not limited to:

i) Timber

ii) Non-timber forest products resulting from sustainable forest management

iii) Other economic benefits such as recreation, tourism, cultural resources, public health, and other activities that accrue benefits to the community.

b) Environmental benefits including but not limited to:

i) Clean air and water

ii) Stormwater management / flood mitigation

iii) Wildlife habitat including for threatened and endangered species

iv) Protection of culturally important resources

c) Forest-based learning including but not limited to:

i) K-12 conservation education programs

ii) Vocational educational programs in disciplines such as forestry and environmental biology and environmental education programs offered by organizations

iii) Replicable model of effective forest stewardship for private landowners

d) Recreational benefits through public access including but not limited to:

i) Hiking

ii) Fishing

iii) Hunting

iv) Enhanced recreational opportunities through connection to other publicly accessible conserved lands

2) Community Engagement: Use a scale of 0-10 to rate the community engagement currently being undertaken and planned for the life of the community forest. A score of 10 is reserved for projects that show meaningful and broad community engagement through the planning and long-term management of the project. The description should be supported by data and/or specific examples.

a) Consider who from the community is being engaged and how broad the applicant’s engagement process is. This may include engagement with public agencies, such as federal, state, and local governments, tribes, local businesses, recreation, and outdoors-based organizations, other community groups or organizations, the general public, and others.

b) Consider how the community is being engaged. What strategies were used by the applicant to engage the community and ensure broad participation? E.g. public meetings, informational booths, public surveys. Do these strategies allow for meaningful input from the community?

c) Consider the level of community input in various stages of the project. Reference the Spectrum of Public Participation where the most participatory community is “Empowered,” meaning the public is directly involved in the final decision, followed by collaboration, involvement, and consultation, as lesser forms of engagement. The least participatory status is “informed,” which means providing the public with information about the project so that they understand what was decided. Engagement may occur at different stages include planning the project, management of the project, and/or determining access and use of the forest.

3) Strategic Contribution and Connection: Use a score of 0-5 to rate the community forest’s strategic contribution and connection to broader landscape initiative(s), which may include:

a) Alignment with the goals of a management plan that identifies the conservation needs and goals of a locality, state, Tribal or regional level. Examples may include a community’s infrastructure plans, a community or county land use plan, Statewide Forest Action Plan, etc.

b) Identifying connections to landscape conservation initiatives and other relevant initiatives such as creating access to public open space where there is none or contributing to local food production.

4) Threat: On a scale of 0-5, rate the threat or likelihood that the project land would be subdivided or converted to non-forest use, where five is exceptionally threatened and 0 is no immediate threat. Pressure of conversion to non-forest use that substantially removes or fragments forest cover. Attributes to consider when evaluating threat include adjacent land use characteristics, landowner circumstances, lack of temporary or permanent protections, and attributes of the property that may facilitate fragmentation. A project should not be penalized due to a private landowner’s stated intent or desire for their property to be conserved, or past actions to advance good stewardship on the property.