Why is Urban and Community Forestry Not Getting More Public Support?

By Alice Ewen Walker
Executive Director, National Alliance for Community Trees


On May 13, President Bush signed a new $73.5 billion farm bill called the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Over the next 6 years, it will fund a wide variety of programs ranging from crop subsidies to nutrition programs. The farm bill also supports conservation and forestry programs, including the most generous funding to date for wetlands protection, conservation easements, erosion control and wildlife habitat protection.

History of the federal Urban and Community Forestry Program

The national Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) program is a cooperative forestry program administered by the US Forest Service. It is the only federal program dedicated to urban and community forestry. The U&CF program funds cost-share grants to communities, technical assistance provided by state agencies, and national investments such as NUCFAC grants and Tree City USA. The program's legislative history and authorities are outlined below.

The federal government formally recognized urban and community forestry as early as 1962, when the President's Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission identified urban forestry as a separate issue. In the 1960's, Ladybird Johnson brought national attention to America's green legacy, hosting a White House Conference on National Beauty and promoting an ethic that culminated in Congress passing the Highway Beautification Act. Two years later, under the leadership of Deputy Chief Philip Thornton, the US Forest Service proposed the creation of a program dedicated to urban forestry. Congress first authorized the creation of the program in 1972, but provided no funding to support its operation. It was the 1978 Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (CFAA) that truly brought the program into being, with annual funding hovering around $3.5 million until 1984, when the program was cut down to just $1.5 million nationwide.

The 1990 Farm Bill broke new ground for urban and community forestry by amending the Cooperative Forestry Act to provide a minimum level of funding of $30 million per year from 1991 to 1995. Also known as the Forest Stewardship Assistance Act, this was the first time that a forestry title was included in a Farm Bill. In addition to amending the CFAA, the legislation authorized rural forestry programs such as Forest Legacy and Forest Stewardship.

By providing assured funding of $30 million per year, the 1990 Farm Bill created a delivery infrastructure that staffed urban forestry programs at the national and state level. The 1990 Farm Bill stipulated the creation of the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC), the requirement that NUCFAC produce a National Action Plan every 10 years, and the creation of a challenge cost-share program. The Forest Service required that to receive funds, state agencies must have a strategy for program delivery, an urban forest advisory council, an urban forestry program coordinator, and a volunteer coordinator.

The CFAA describes the program's purpose and authorities in detail, but in a nutshell, the U&CF program is dedicated to providing technical and financial assistance to communities via state forestry agencies and their cooperators. Every state program uses the funds a little differently to meet local need. In California, California ReLeaf contracts with the state to deliver financial assistance to communities in the form of cost-share grants, the California Urban Forests Council provides educational assistance through workshops and conferences, and the State Department of Fire and Forestry provides technical assistance to local governments and other community partners.

Separate and apart from the U&CF program, the US Forest Service also supports the integration of urban forestry into other parts of the agency. Last year USFS Research and Development (R&D) invested approximately $3 million nationally toward urban forest research - the Center for Urban Forest Research at UC Davis is an example of that investment. The National Forest System (NFS) has also designated 14 'urban national forests' nationwide in which educational and recreational activities will increasingly target nearby urban populations - Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests are examples.

What may be disappointing for some is that urban forestry is not among the programs that stand to benefit from this year's farm bill. Considering the controversy surrounding the bill, that may not be a bad thing - but it is worth asking the broader question, 'Why isn't urban and community forestry getting more support?"

The federal Urban and Community Forestry program owes its past 10 years of success to the 1990 Farm Bill, which dramatically increased funding and outlined a structure for delivering technical and financial assistance to communities. Since then, state agencies have made significant strides to improve technical standards, encourage the hiring of trained arborists within local government, and provide consulting services to create urban forest management plans and tree ordinances. In the private sector, both the tree care industry and non-profit citizens groups have increased private investment in tree care and their organizations have become more professionalized and institutionalized.

Today the federal U&CF program has been functioning largely according to plan, but nationally, we have not made much headway in strengthening federal funding so that the program can grow. The 2002 appropriation for the U&CF program was $36 million, which reflects a steady and modest annual increase from the $30 million we started with in 1991. National funding isn't losing ground, but it isn't gaining very rapidly either, despite an economic expansion that rewarded many federal programs in the 1990s. As a point of comparison, another cooperative Forest Service program, the Forest Legacy program, doubled its budget from $30 million to $60 million in 2001 due to broad support in Congress and the Administration.

In ten years, industry, state and local government, and the nonprofit sector have improved their capacity and have increased public demand for properly managed urban greenscapes. That is an accomplishment for which we should feel proud. Because of our collective success, demand for technical and financial assistance has grown exponentially, resulting in more pressure on the public resources available. It is like hosting a dinner party every year using the same amount of food, but the guest list keeps increasing.

The answer to the situation is multifold.

At the national level, Congress needs to hear from the broad community of state, local, private and citizen interests that urban forestry is important. We can ask Congress to do several things: 1.) Increase the annual appropriation for the U&CF program to $50 million. The House Interior Appropriations Sub-committee controls this funding. 2.) Direct the Forest Service to double its investment in support of urban forest research. Last year the Forest Service spent about $3 million nationwide. 3.) Ask Congress to establish urban forestry programs within other federal agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The US Forest Service is primarily a rural lands agency. For urban forestry to truly thrive, we need national support within the federal agencies that work the most in urban areas.

Our state general assemblies need to hear that urban forestry is important. Some state urban forestry programs are wholly dependent on federal funds, limiting their ability to provide assistance. In states where urban populations are the greatest, our state legislators are in a position to dramatically increase funding for urban forestry programs and to pass regulations that preserve tree canopy. In Maryland, the statewide Forest Conservation Act of 1991 regulates tree removal, preservation, and replacement on any development site in the state. In its first 5 years, the act was credited with retaining 22,508 acres of forestland and with planting 4,313 acres of trees. A secondary bi-product of the legislation has been the increasing involvement of certified tree care professionals in the development process - regulatory compliance created demand for urban foresters in the public and private sector, resulting in better land management statewide.

Our local officials need to hear that urban forestry is important. Mayors and county executives want to know why they should spend money to plant and care for trees in parks and rights of way. City and county planning offices want to know why they should give up tax revenue in favor of preserving selected greenways and forestlands. School boards want to hear why they should spend money on grounds maintenance instead of paving schoolyards. In Los Angeles, the LA Unified School District and LA Department of Water Quality has made a multi-year investment to remove blacktop and plant more than 8,000 trees because of convincing cost-benefit analysis provided by urban forest advocates.

When we tell the story of tree planting as a social, health, and economic issue, policy makers, corporate leaders, and foundation trustees listen. We know the arguments we need to make, and it is when we have the people power to match that we find the most success. Citizen advocacy is the key, and at the local level, we are seeing real achievement. Last year Friends of the Urban Forest in San Francisco and TreeUtah in Salt Lake both showed what can happen when citizens come together to demand support for trees. San Francisco and Salt Lake were facing budget cuts and wanted to drastically cut urban forestry programs. In both cases, non-profits were able to rally their membership base, demonstrate public support, and convince politicians to retain public funding for urban forestry. In Atlanta, Trees Atlanta organized information sessions to learn about mayoral candidates' positions on urban forestry. The election year signs that sprouted up on voter lawns said it all, "I Vote for Trees."