What the Notch Reservoir forestry project is and isn’t

COMMENTARY

BY HENRY ART AND DICKEN CRANE

After several years of careful planning and invitations for public involvement to create a plan that will increase the resiliency of the woodlands in the Notch Reservoir watershed, restore its ecological function and intentionally manage the area using science-based, sustainable practices, a few citizens’ groups are now voicing opposition to the proposed forest management.

Along with the city’s leaders and the conservation organizations providing technical assistance to plan this restoration work, these groups share a sincere concern for the well-being of the forests.

However, one of their key objections to the proposed work is that Mother Nature can best manage the forest, and that humans manipulating the composition and structure of the forest is both unnatural and unnecessary for this landscape.

Scientific research and historical context contradict this view. A broader understanding of the nature of both our regional forests and the role of humans that interact with them is necessary to understand what actions are called for and how they will work hand in hand with passive approaches for long-term stewardship.

For more than 10,000 years, humans have been integral in shaping the forests of this region. People both consume and influence the ecosystem services of clean air, water, food, fiber, shelter and essential resources that the landscape provides. We have always been interdependent with the totality of life in this ecological landscape.

Some have suggested that the woods at Notch Reservoir are “pristine” or untouched by people, but this forest, like most in Massachusetts, regrew after widespread land clearing in the 19th century. While most of the forest regrew naturally, the areas closest to the Notch Reservoir were planted in conifers: red pine, eastern white pine and Norway spruce.

Please log in or subscribe to continue reading the article