|
Forests Forest
Ownership | Private
Forestland | Urban Forests Summary of Our Forestry Work In recent years, sustainability has emerged as the overarching priority of leading forest management efforts at the international, national, state, and local levels. Sustainable forest management focuses on enhancing the full range of environmental, social, and economic values of the forest and integrating management across ownerships, jurisdictions, and landscapes. Despite widespread enthusiasm for this new direction, its implementation will require overhauling time-honored policy assumptions and forging creative partnerships among diverse entities and stakeholders. The Roundtable on Sustainable Forests, a broad-based forum of forest stakeholders, has begun building a foundation for defining, promoting, and implementing sustainable forest management. The Northeast-Midwest Institute is complementing the work of the Roundtable and its participants by working to engage members of Congress in understanding sustainable forest management and identifying policies and programs to support it. Traditionally, congressional involvement in forest issues has focused on managing federal lands and debating logging, road-building and, most recently, fire suppression policies. Sustainable forest management encompasses a far more extensive range of economic, environmental, and social issues that are directly related to the health of forests and the communities that depend on them. Moreover, it requires consideration of the nonfederal lands that comprise 70 percent of the nation's forests, and also the landscape encompassing wetlands, farmland, developed areas, and open spaces that are interspersed with forests.
Forest Ownership in the Northeast and Midwest Nationwide, more than 60 percent of forestland is privately owned. In nearly all of the Northeast and Midwest states, this percentage is substantially higher.
SOURCE: The State Forestry Statistics Resource Base, National Association of State Foresters. The standard definition of forestland provided by the U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Program includes land currently growing forest trees of any size with a total stocking value of at least 16.7 (10 base 100 in the West), or lands formerly forested, currently capable of becoming forestland, and not currently developed for nonforest uses. These lands must be a minimum of one acre in area. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of timber must have a crown width of at least 120 feet to qualify as forestland. Unimproved roads, trails, streams, and clearings within forest areas are classified as forest land if they are less than 120 feet wide. Recently clearcut areas that are currently nonstocked are classed as forestland unless they are being used for a nonforest use such as agriculture.
Forests provide numerous environmental and economic benefits.
Management: Despite their importance to environmental quality, timber production, wildlife habitat, and recreation, nonindustrial private forestlands are the least intensively managed of any forest ownership category. On much of this land, a timber sale is an unusual event in the owner's life, often in response to a personal situation such as retirement or other financial needs. Only 10 percent of these owners obtain professional advice before harvesting their timber, and the vast majority have no plan for maintaining or regenerating a sustainable forest following harvest. Development:The 1997 National Resources Inventory reports that from 1982 to 1997, most development of forest occurred on nonfederal forestland (i.e., nonindustrial and industrial private land, state and locally owned land, and other). Combined, forestland and cultivated cropland made up more than 60 percent of the total acreage developed since 1982. A 2005 study by the U.S. Forest Service called Forests on the Edge projected that 44 million acres of private forest—particularly in the East, where most private forests occur—will experience increased housing development by 2030. Fragmentation: The number of forest landowners is increasing and the average area of their land parcels is decreasing, in a process called "fragmentation." Forest fragmentation converts large, contiguous areas of forest into smaller patches of forest and nonforest land in ways that do not allow the forest to regenerate. According to the U.S. Forest Service, "Fragmentation of a forest type into smaller pieces disrupts ecological processes and reduces the availability of habitats for some wildlife species. Fragmented areas may be too small to maintain viable breeding populations of some species. The distances between and among forest fragments can interfere with pollination, seed dispersal, wildlife movement, and breeding. Ultimately, excessive fragmentation can contribute to the loss of plant and animal species that are unable to recolonize after an area is disturbed." Planning and development of contiguous areas of open space may reverse the trend toward fragmentation. "Green infrastructure" initiatives create networks of green spaces that function as an ecological whole, not as a random assemblage of separate, unrelated parts. By linking different system components such as parks, preserves, biological sites, and other green spaces, green infrastructure can maintain vital ecological processes and healthy wildlife populations while conserving scenic and recreational areas.
There is no universally accepted definition of sustainable forest management (SFM), although the term is used throughout the world. Generally, SFM respects the full range of environmental, social, and economic values of the forest, rather than focusing on forests as the source of a single product or service. SFM seeks to integrate approaches for ensuring that none of these values is diminished. In 1993, the United States declared its commitment to the goal of sustainable management of all the nation's forests by the year 2000. Two years later, the United States joined nine other countries in adopting criteria and indicators (C&I) as a framework for accurately monitoring forest conditions and progress toward SFM. Today twelve nations, representing about 60 percent of the world's forests, have adopted the seven criteria and 67 indicators that emerged from the 1994 Montreal Process, and other regions including Europe, the Amazonian countries, and dry-land Africa have developed similar sets of C&I. The C&I describe forest conditions, attributes, or functions; the benefits associated with environmental and socioeconomic goods and services that forests provide; and the policy framework, institutions, and processes that advance SFM. The criteria are:
Collectively, C&I data can provide forest owners, managers and decision-makers with a comprehensive, holistic view of forest conditions and enhance informed dialogue, policy-making, and forest management. Moreover, because the C&I encompass the full range of forest values, they enable diverse interests to cooperate knowing that their priorities are acknowledged. In fact, the C&I may be a catalyst for bringing together people who might not otherwise find common ground, paving the way for new partnerships and interagency collaboration. Reports based on the C&I also will contribute to the ongoing international forest policy dialogue. In February
2003, the USDA Forest Service released the National
Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003, which examines available
data on each of the 67 Montreal Process indicators. The report describes
each indicator, and for most of them includes a graphical display
of the data and a description of what the data shows. The report
also explores relationships among the C&I and describes some
possible next steps for improving the understanding and reporting
of the C&I to advance sustainable forest management. The application of the Montreal Process C&I should not be confused with various forest certification systems. The C&I are designed to describe forest values associated with sustainability, whereas certification systems ensure compliance with specific requirements for achieving sustainability. The distinctions between the two are clarified in a report, Comparing Forest Management Certification Systems and the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators.
Urban forests provide a host of environmental and economic benefits, and yet there are indicators of declining tree canopy in many metropolitan areas. The term "urban forest" pertains to vegetation, especially trees, in cities, towns and suburbs. The benefits of having trees in and around our communities include, but are not limited to, the following: Removal of pollutants and increased oxygen supply. Trees remove a wide variety of harmful pollutants from the air, including ozone, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. The cleaner air that trees provide has quantifiable benefits for community health. Studies of several metropolitan areas have estimated that the air quality benefits of urban trees can save several million dollars in health care costs to local residents. For instance, American Forests estimates that in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, trees are responsible for the removal of 20 million pounds of airborne pollutants every year, worth a savings of $49.8 million annually. Enhanced stormwater management. Trees in urban areas provide a natural mechanism for absorbing rainwater. Replacing trees with impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots necessitates the construction of costly stormwater drainage facilities and retention ponds. Conversely, increasing canopy cover in urban areas reduces runoff and decreases a city's rainwater management costs. According to American Forests, trees in the metropolitan D.C. area can stem the flow of 949 million cubic feet of runoff water, saving the area approximately $4.7 billion in retention facility costs. Lower energy costs. Because of the cooling effects of shade and transpiration, strategically placing trees around buildings can significantly reduce air conditioning costs to homes and businesses. Area power plants, in turn, don't have to produce as much electricity, thereby reducing the emission of harmful pollutants. Increased property values. The presence of trees can add value to practically any piece of property. According to the Realty Association of America, 7 percent to10 percent of property value is attributable to trees and landscaping. In many cases, the increase in property value that comes from planting trees outweighs the costs associated with planting and upkeep. Despite these benefits, American Forests reports that in several major urban areas, the amount of landmass covered by impervious surfaces relative to tree canopy has increased drastically over the last 30 years. Although nationwide data are unavailable, regional studies show that most cities are losing canopy. For instance, in the Canton-Akron metropolitan area, areas of high canopy (where trees cover more than 50 percent of the land) have decreased 43 percent since 1973. Areas of low canopy (such as impervious surfaces and other areas where trees cover less than 20 percent of the land) have increased 41 percent over the same period of time. Federal Urban Forest Programs In an effort to reverse this nationwide trend, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service offers services to communities across the nation to improve urban forests. Through the Urban and Community Forestry Program, the Forest Service provides financial and technical assistance to America's city's and towns. Regional and state coordinators work with local officials and private agencies to support research, carry out training sessions and coordinate volunteers. In fiscal 1998, the Urban and Community Forestry Program assisted 10,325 communities, nearly one-quarter of the cities and towns in the country. Community Urban Forest Programs On the local level, several communities, both large and small, have made efforts to build and maintain healthy urban forests. Some examples include: The Greening of Detroit. This private, non-profit organization has worked to restore tree cover in Detroit since 1989, drawing on support from local businesses, schools and individuals, as well as government agencies on the federal, state and local levels. The organization has been responsible for the planting of thousands of trees at local parks, schools, and sidewalks. Revitalizing Baltimore. This regional partnership includes the U.S. Forest Service, the Maryland Forest Service, the City of Baltimore, and more than 20 other organizations. It has been responsible for the planting of over 10,000 trees in local neighborhoods. The partnership also funds dozens of urban forestry grants, and provides educational services to teachers and students in the area. The Ohio Bicentennial Legacy Tree Planting Program. This statewide program was initiated in 1999 with the goal of planting 2 million trees – one for every child in the state – by the state's bicentennial anniversary in 2003. Drawing on funds from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the program provides grants to local communities to help plant trees along roads, on abandoned strip mines, and in state parks. To date, the program has been responsible for the planting of 1.2 million trees.
Contacts Federal
Resources State
Agencies Forestry
Organizations
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
