|
Indicator: 1
[Output]
Measurements in/of Recommendations Made
Relationships: Department of Agriculture - Narrower_Than
Other Information:
National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council
| Type |
Target |
Actual |
| StartDate |
2010-10-01 |
2010-10-01 |
| EndDate |
2011-09-30 |
2011-09-30 |
| Number |
n/a |
61 |
| Description |
Unspecified |
The Council presented the Secretary with areas of focus and specific goals of NUCFAC's Action Plan for 2006 - 2016. The specific
areas of focus and proposed changes to the Action Plan included their comments addressing: Multiple, independent Federal authorities
complicate local green infrastructure and urban forestry initiatives» As many as six Cabinet-level or sub-cabinet agencies
have adopted agendas that echo founding principles of the Urban and Community Forestry Program [EPA, DOT, DOI, HUD, CDC, and
DOD]. Many invest in place-based projects. The state and municipal transportation, housing and community development, water
management and public health agencies at the other end of the funding pipeline to the ones who implement funded projects -
tend naturally to "connect" most closely with their traditional Federal funding partners. Municipal officials agree the growth
of different Federal programs seeking to make cities "green" is a vital step in the right direction, but that same growth
can sometimes complicate local efforts to plan and implement major projects. Progress is easier when the various Federal agencies
funding complementary programs strive to coordinate their own programs at the Federal level as well.* Recommendation: USDA
should encourage convening of a "summit" meeting of senior officials from among these agencies to develop strategies and policies
for cooperation, coordination and mutual support of each other's programs - as a means of simplifying execution of local and
state initiatives. * Recommendation: USDA/FS should take aggressive pro-active steps to establish itself as: Source of knowledge
critical to successful implementation of green infrastructure Hub for grass-roots networks of individuals, organizations and
professionals who must implement these initiatives- willing partner ready to make its expertise and networks available to
Federal, state and local partners.* Recommendation: Adopt, and encourage adoption by other agencies, of the definition of
"green infrastructure" established by the Conservation Fund."Green infrastructure is strategically planned and managed networks
of natural lands, working landscapes and other open spaces that conserve ecosystem values and functions and provide associated
benefits to human populations. "»Municipal officials, especially in smaller communities, can be overwhelmed by flow of projects,
how to integrate them and how to promote cooperative action among different local agencies. * Recommendation: USDA should
create and market information and technical assistance resources for local governments. Forest Service will expand partnerships
with professional organizations comprising local public works, planning, water quality, housing, public health agencies.Develop
fiscal tools so communities can protect privately-owned forests»Many smaller communities face conversion of open land on their
urban boundary, and often within it. Most lack easy access to the funds necessary to acquire development rights or purchase
these lands in fee. * Recommendation: USDA should foster legislation through Farm Bill to authorize tax-exempt Community Forestry
Bonds as new financial tool to conserve our nation's private working forests while maintaining jobs and ecological services.
Authorization would allow qualified non-profit buyers to acquire working forestland with tax-exempt debt, and to service that
debt with revenue from sustainable timber harvest. Who Speaks for the Urban Forest? Many active in urban forestry
and green infrastructure believe their jobs would be easier if there were a visible, consistent and credible national campaign
and spokesperson for the benefits of greening cities. Such a public movement would ease the challenge of garnering political
and public support for local and state initiatives.*Recommendation: The Forest Service should initiate and guide this “campaign”
perhaps with the nation’s chief forester on point.Magnifying Impact of UCF programs in the Forest Service and USDA overall
For a variety of reasons, historically the Forest Service has been viewed as first, a land managing agency; second, a fire-fighting
service; and increasingly for its role in promoting conservation of private lands, and ecosystem-related research. UCF is
often viewed as a subsidiary activity, and sometimes as one that can be [and has been] superseded by perceived “higher-priority”
mission areas.* Recommendation: Increase inter-unit collaboration [e.g. forest health, research]. Encourage Chief to continue
make UCF a personal priority, and make that support more visible. Much of the valuable work undertaken by UCF and
Research may not be visible to all Forest Service units and other USDA agencies which might benefit from it.* Recommendation:
The Forest Service should commit to annual plan with specific strategies for joint efforts with other FS units, and outreach
to other USDA agencies. Strategies should be outcome-driven and assessed. Examples include APHIS [endangered species], Ecosystem
Services and Markets.Opportunities and Challenges Facing Urban and Community ForestryIn preparing its recommendations the
National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council considered the current climate for urban and community forestry initiatives,
and the role the Forest Service has played in advancing them.Legacy of SuccessSince its founding in the early 1990’s, the
Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Program sparked a nationwide movement to bring urban forestry programs to communities
around the nation. Working in partnership with state forestry agencies and with limited budgets, the program produced outsized
results. Below are examples, drawn from many, of how UCF has made a difference.Energizing Community Initiatives. Nearly two
decades ago, for example, a small non-profit organization in Baltimore received a multi-year grant from the Forest Service.
The organization: Parks and People. The challenge: to reclaim green space in a declining industrial city, and protect its
fragile watersheds. With robust public support and committed political leadership, Parks and People continues to expand the
use of green infrastructure to mend impaired watersheds, and aid other jurisdictions surrounding the Chesapeake Bay. As one
of its executives noted, “Somebody has to become the center of excellence that spreads innovation to smaller communities.
The state forestry agency is the right place to do that – to get the word out and take into account local conditions.” Planning
for Green Infrastructure. Through partnerships with State universities and the Green Infrastructure Center, Virginia DOF helped
small communities and larger counties develop long-term plans to rebuild green infrastructure, protect critical urban natural
resources and support measured growth. The state relies on Federal UCF funds to support its two urban foresters. But their
efforts have positioned Virginia jurisdictions to qualify for tens of millions in Federal and state funding for green infrastructure
improvements. Building Local Capacity. The Texas Forest Service, along with other state agencies, recognized from the outset
that to grow a successful urban forestry program, you had to build the framework on the ground, in municipalities themselves.
Accordingly, Texas offered local governments seed money from UCF funds to hire urban foresters – time-limited grants that
would be replaced by municipal funds. Today, TFS counts 50 to 60 urban forester positions supported by local funds throughout
the state. Reinforcing Statewide Commitment. Early on, Wisconsin committed substantial resources to urban forestry, and committed
itself to supporting programs statewide. For every Federal dollar allocated to urban forestry in Wisconsin, the state invests
six or seven. As state programs matured, Milwaukee crafted a city-wide urban forestry program – with widespread political
support – that earned a national reputation for innovation. Putting Green Systems to Work. A growing number of cities (Syracuse,
Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Cincinnati, Baltimore, Portland, and others) have begun focusing on tree-based urban systems
to address stormwater problems, enhance natural hydrology, re-hydrate urban areas, and improve water quality. Forest Service
research and technical assistance, often delivered through state forestry agencies, provided a critical catalyst to these
initiatives, and tools to help monitor their success.ChallengesWelcoming New Stakeholders. To work effectively in the world
of “green infrastructure,” the urban and community forestry community must reach beyond its traditional urban constituencies
to assess needs and expectations of a much broader array of stakeholders – from urban water authorities to county park systems
to regional planning agencies.Connecting with New Networks. Professional organizations like American Planning Association,
Water Environment Federation, International Society of Arboriculture, American Society of Landscape Architects and others
like the National Association of Regional Councils serve as network hubs; they offer a convenient “plug-and-play” pipeline
to thousands of planning, water quality and engineering professionals as well as grassroots organizations active in developing
and implement green infrastructure projects. At the state and local level, urban foresters seek guidance on how to integrate
their expertise into green infrastructure projects; many see the Forest Service as a source of best practices and tools.Adapting
to New Delivery Systems. An outcome-based approach to conservation – e.g. protecting clean water, sequestering carbon – blurs
distinctions between urban, suburban, rural, and natural areas. It demands multi-jurisdictional, multi-program frameworks
for action that engage local, state and/or regional authorities, as well as nongovernmental and community organizations. Enabling
Ecosystem Markets. Many cities are exploring how to finance green infrastructure investments by earning revenue for the benefits
they produce – from carbon sequestration to storm-water management. But creating ecosystem services markets in metropolitan
communities is barely a “science,” and hardly exact. Helping planners understand what works and what doesn’t – where and under
what conditions – demands extensive research and far-reaching education programs.Energizing NGOs. Non-profits are assuming
larger and more influential roles in determining what can and should happen to urban natural resources. Many benefited from
early support from the Forest Service. Some observers believe the future of urban and community forestry rests with the organizations
themselves, municipal governments, and related stakeholders.
|
|
