But a new report that examines forest policies in the Bay states found a hodgepodge of programs that are unlikely to curb woodland losses. The report suggests that the states need forest preservation goals coupled with a holistic re-examination of programs that affect woodlands, from state infrastructure investments to local tax policies. But without that overarching vision, what you are left with is kind of an ad-hoc approach. About 58 percent of the watershed remains forested, but those lands face troubling trends. Maintaining or expanding forests are beneficial in almost any setting.
Urban forests help reduce stormwater runoff, energy use and air pollution.
Streamside forests reduce runoff and improve aquatic habitats. Large forest tracts protect groundwater, reduce runoff, provide habitat and many other services. Studies show that as forest cover in a watershed declines, so does water quality. But it has no explicit forest preservation or restoration goals. Such goals were considered during the writing of the agreement, but were dropped because of a lack of consensus.