WETPartnership: Watershed exchange and technology partnership |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"A forest, large or small, may render its service in many ways. It may reach its highest usefulness by standing as a safeguard against floods, winds, snow slides, moving sands, or especially against the dearth of water in the streams." Gifford Pinchot, A Primer of Forestry, Bulletin 24, 1903 The Watershed Exchange and Technology Partnership is a joint venture of the University of Massachusetts–Amherst and the U.S. Forest Service Northeastern Area. It was established in 2001 to enhance the awareness, understanding and management of forests and water. The conservation of forests to protect aquatic ecosystems and public water supplies is the principal focus of our work. The primary goal of our research and development work — disseminated through this web site, the peer-reviewed literature, presentations, and workshops — is to interpret and adapt scientific research to meet the needs of natural resource managers, environmental regulators, policy makers, and the public. The annotated links on this web site provide additional ideas, data, information, and operational examples for watershed forest management. People are a forest dependent speciesThe term "forest dependent species" is usually applied to plants or animals with specialized, obligate habitat requirements (e.g., the Hermit thrush, fisher, beaver, etc). In light of the many connections between "the forest and the faucet," this classification applies to people as well! This underscores the importance of forest conservation to maintain or enhance water resources and many other benefits and values—wildlife habitat, biological diversity, recreation, wood and other forest products, and aesthetics. "The great lesson of Man and Nature was that nature did not heal herself; land, once dominated then abandoned by man, did not revert to its primitive condition but became impoverished. The difficulty was not that man's power exceeded nature's, but that the extent of that power was unrecognized. Greed was only partly to blame for the rape of the land; the acts mainly responsible were unintended, even unconscious. Most men did not mean to destroy the balance of nature; they did not know that they were doing so. Although man was selfish and shortsighted, he was not irrational. Reform might follow understanding. Marsh saw man as a force above nature. If the Creator had a plan, it required man's active and rational participation." David Lowenthal, Introduction to the 1965 reprint of Man and Nature by George Perkins Marsh (1864) Concerted efforts in forest conservation in the United States began more than a century ago when the connections between forests, water, and people became plainly evident. Exploitive logging practices, widespread conversion of forests to marginal agricultural use, drastic modifications of streams and rivers, and unchecked water pollution caused cumulative, unsustainable ecological and public health problems. The loss of forests and degradation of water resources and aquatic ecosystems affected people's lives in substantial and pervasive ways. In retrospect, the societal response to these challenges — in both scope and pace — was nothing short of remarkable. In a few decades, reforestation, erosion control, and water pollution control efforts by state and federal agencies and private landowners led to substantial improvements in forest health and water quality. Economic and social changes contributed to this rapid turnaround. Forests, water, and people — a new century of challenges and opportunitiesAt the beginning of the 21st Century we face a new suite of challenges—population growth, urban sprawl, atmospheric deposition, invasive species, loss of biological diversity, and many conflicting demands placed on forest lands. In some respects these challenges are more daunting and complex than the reforestation and soil erosion problems of the early-1900s. The emigration of people from rural to urban areas and consequent increases in the area and physical stature of forests during the last century, largely the result of agricultural abandonment, have contributed to the illusion that we are "better off" than in the early-1900s. In fact, increases in population and per capita consumption (of water, wood, and energy) have outpaced increases in forested area. Simply put, in many parts of the United States there are more people per square mile of forest today than there were in 1900 (Table 1). Furthermore, the conversion of forests to residential and commercial land use, coupled with population increases, is repeating a trend last recorded in the 1800s when forests were cleared for agriculture. By contrast to marginal agricultural land in the late-1800s and early-1900s, it is likely that forest land that has been converted to residential and commercial uses has been changed permanently. Therefore, how we manage and ameliorate these changes will have a lasting impact on environmental quality and quality of life. Table 1: Population and forest area in New England, 1900 and 2000
(Data sources: US Census Bureau, USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis, Harvard Forest) Urban and suburban residents rely on municipal water supply, wastewater, and solid waste management systems as well as sources of energy and natural resources that are remote and disconnected from everyday life. In many locales, these systems and services are, in effect, "invisible" until adverse cumulative effects, unintended consequences, and chronic ecological stresses lead to costly, sometimes intractable problems. When this happens, pollution mitigation and ecosystem restoration are the only viable management alternatives. However, if natural resource managers, policy makers, and the public become aware of more cost-effective and productive ways of avoiding or minimizing environmental problems—when there is still time for implementation—these alternatives usually enjoy broad-based support. Although the Conservation Movement of the early-1900s is often regarded as brainchild of few progressive leaders, it was as much a "bottom-up" phenomena based on individual, local, and regional efforts as it was a grand "top-down" plan (Judd 1999). The success of solid waste recycling, water and energy conservation, and open space protection programs during the last several decades clearly demonstrates that individuals, organizations, and communities can change their "ecological footprint." The Watershed Exchange and Technology Partnership is working to extend this conservation ethic to forests and water …and people. "This dichotomy between more demands for forest products and services and fewer forests suggests that we need more intensive management of some areas for timber and commodities; more areas set aside or managed for wildlife, biodiversity, recreation, and non-market values; and more cooperation among stakeholders on public and, increasingly, on private forest lands. Better research and implementation of those research advances provide the only practical means that can meet increased demands with decreased supply." Fred Cubbage, Preface, National Capacity in Forestry Research, National Research Council, 2002 References
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||