State Watershed Forestry Assistance Program Guideline
Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org by July 26.
I. Purpose, Scope and Background.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Watershed Forestry Assistance Program (WFAP) is to use forests and forestry practices to produce measurable improvements in water quality, watershed health, and watershed management through partnerships and collaborative approaches in priority watersheds.
B.Scope. The scope of this program includes:
C. Background. Studies have shown that forested watersheds produce high quality water and that forestry practices can help prevent and resolve a variety of environmental problems including those associated with agricultural and developed land uses. Programs that establish and maintain forests and tree cover have been found effective in mitigating stormwater run-off, reducing pollutants, limiting peak flow increases, and sustaining aquatic ecosystems. Forests are increasingly recognized for their critical role in meeting national clean water goals, especially in terms of drinking water supplies. The Watershed Forestry Assistance Program represents a unique integration of practical, long-term approaches and scientific concepts for protecting and improving the nation’s water resources. The program:
A. Best Management Practice (BMP). Specific practices identified by a State as a means of preventing or reducing water pollution from nonpoint sources. An example of a BMP is the installation of a forestry streamside management zone to filter out sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants before they enter surface waters.
The Chief of the United States Department of
C. Cost-share. Those funds available under WFAP for watershed forestry projects on non-federal land in priority watersheds. WFAP cost-share funds may not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project. Other Federal funding sources may contribute an additional 15 percent of the cost of the project. Non-federal share of the costs of the project may be provided in the form of cash, services, or other in-kind contributions.
D. Education. A series of activities, events, and printed or electronic materials that: 1) expand the general understanding of the connection between forest management and watershed health. 2) actively involve learners in assessing their own individual needs in order to adopt new or improved practices that protect, restore and manage watershed functions; 3) deliver knowledge to learners in formats that enable them to use it; and 4) enable learners to develop and demonstrate the necessary skills to implement forestry practices that benefit water resources and watershed health while achieving individual goals.
E. Geographic Regions. The collection of States that makeup the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) Regions. The three regions are: North (consisting of the States within the Forest Service Northeastern Area), South (consisting of all the States within the Forest Service Southern Region, and the Territories of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF)), and the West (consisting of all the States within the Forest Service Northern, Rocky Mountain, Intermountain, Southwestern, Pacific Southwest, Pacific Northwest and Alaska Regions). See Appendix XX for a map of the Forest Service’s Regions/Area/IITF.
F. Hydrologic Unit Code. A national standard system of watersheds that are classified into four types of units: regions, sub-regions, accounting units, and cataloging units. The hydrologic units are arranged within each other, from the smallest (cataloging units) to the largest (regions). Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC) consisting of two to eight digits based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system. A standardized fifth-level of classification or ten-digit hydrologic unit (watershed) is being developed. Locally, a non-standard sixth-level sub-watershed may be available.
G. In-kind contributions. Non-cash contributions, including third-party contributions, necessary to accomplish program activities. Expenses must be allowable as if the Federal Government were required to pay for them. See Appendix XX for applicable OMB Circulars.
H. Nonindustrial private forest land. Land that has existing tree cover or that is suitable for growing trees; and is owned by any nonindustrial private individual, group, association, corporation, or other private legal entity, that has definitive decision making authority over the land.
I. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. NPS pollution comes from many diffuse sources and is caused by irrigation, rainfall, or snowmelt runoff that picks up pollutants and deposits them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and aquifers. Examples of these pollutants include:
· Supporting a State Watershed Forester position;
· Providing a State implementation strategy for
o A program of technical assistance to protect water quality and
o A State Watershed forestry cost-share program;
· Designating State priority watershed(s), and
· Achieving measurable results with targeted funds.
K. Priority Watershed. A watershed selected by the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee or equivalent body for the purpose of targeting funds and resources to protect or accelerate improvements in water quality and watershed condition.
L. Program. A State-wide activity including development of State-wide educational opportunities and best-management practices.
M. Project. A watershed-scale undertaking which may consist of many components including planning, education, implementation of best management practices, and other watershed protection, management, or restoration actions.
N. Responsible official. USDA Forest Service Regional Forester, Area Director, or Institute Director charged with the administration of WFAP.
O. State. Each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and the territories and possessions of the United States.
P. State Forester. The director or other head of a State forestry agency or equivalent State official.
R.Urban. That part of a watershed that contains a city or town in which people live. These human settlements have geographic names and boundaries, a form of local governance, and a legal status recognized by the state or jurisdiction in which they are located.
S. Watershed. The total area above a given point of a water body that contributes flow to that point.
T. Watershed Forester. A position under the direction of a State Forester with technical watershed skills and the primary responsibility for the coordination and oversight of the Statewide watershed forestry program.
U. Watershed Forestry. The use of forests and the practice of forestry to protect, restore, and sustain water quality, water flows, and the health and function of watersheds.
III. National Program Administration.
A. The Chief of the Forest Service and (where appropriate as described in Section III.G) the Administrator of the Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) may provide technical, financial, and related assistance to State Foresters or Cooperative Extension officials at land grant colleges and universities and 1890 institutions, to expand State capacities for addressing watershed issues on non-federal forested and potentially forested land.
B. The Chief shall provide national and regional technical and financial assistance and administrative [F1]oversight of WFAP. This includes monitoring results of WFAP over the life of the program to ensure that State forestry programs and watershed forestry projects are contributing to measurable improvements in water quality in priority watersheds; addressing watershed issues on non-federal forested land and potentially forested land; and enhancing public understanding of the connection between forests and watershed health.
C. The Chief shall annually distribute such funds as may be available for WFAP as follows:
1. The funds shall be distributed in two categories:
· Technical and educational assistance and
· Watershed Forestry Projects.
2. The national allocation shall be divided between these two fund categories with no more than 25 percent supporting technical and educational assistance and at least 75 percent supporting cost-shared Watershed Forestry Project Grants.
D. The Chief shall send the regional allocation to the Responsible Official(s) in each of the three geographic regions for distribution to the State Foresters. In the Western Geographic Region, the Chief shall send allocations to the Responsible Official in each of the seven Forest Service regions. The allocation will be determined as specified in Section X.
E. The Chief has authority to resolve all issues that may arise in the administration of WFAP.
F. The Chief shall submit an annual report to the Secretary of Agriculture that includes a summary of all activities and practices funded under WFAP for the previous fiscal year and a cumulative summary of significant accomplishments nationwide.
G. The Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), in consultation with the Chief, may provide support for WFAP development and implementation, including:
IV. Regional Program Administration.
The Responsible Official shall provide oversight for all aspects of WFAP including State program reviews.
B. The Responsible Official shall submit an annual report to the Chief summarizing all programs and projects funded through WFAP for the previous fiscal year.
C. The Responsible Official shall disburse funds to the State Foresters in a timely manner based on the allocations provided by the Chief. The Responsible Official(s) shall coordinate with State Foresters to determine the final allocation to each State and will document any adjustments to the individual State allocations.
D. The Responsible Official(s) shall facilitate watershed projects that cross State or Forest Service regional boundaries.
The Responsible Official should assist the State in identification of strategic issues and opportunities that may help the State in determining their priority watersheds or targeting program activities.
F. The Responsible Official shall ensure that the States’ proposed program actions produce measurable results in watershed health and management.
G. The Responsible Official shall ensure that State grant narratives include:
1. Actions consistent with the implementation strategy for WFAP;
2. Activities and responsibilities of the State Watershed Forester position;
3. Selection criteria for State priority watershed(s);
4. Targeting of actions within State priority watershed(s); and
5. Plans to achieve and report measurable results.
V. State Program Administration.
· Provisions for duties and actions of a State Watershed Forester position;
· Identified State priority watershed(s) and rationale/criteria for selection; and
· WFAP implementation strategy including:
o A program of technical assistance to protect water quality and a watershed forestry project cost-share program; and
o Plans for achieving measurable results with targeted project funds in priority watershed(s).
B. The State Forester, in consultation with the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee or equivalent body, should identify priority watersheds within each State based on the criteria contained in Section VI. Watershed forestry projects must be conducted in priority watersheds.
C. No cost-share of funds is required from the State for the participation in technical and educational portion of WFAP (see Section VII). Watershed forestry projects (see Section VIII) require at least a 25 percent State match with WFAP funds. The States may use other federal funds to cover this match except that the total Federal share may not exceed 90 percent.
D. Each State participating in WFAP shall submit an annual report to the Responsible Official, reporting all projects and programs funded through WFAP for the previous fiscal year. The report should contain data on accomplishments by educational assistance, technical assistance, and watershed forestry projects. See Section IX.
E. A State does not have to adopt a separate WFAP cost-share or grant program if a State cost-share or grant program already exists that meets the objectives of WFAP. However, WFAP funds must be accounted for in accordance with Federal financial accounting standards. If an existing cost-share or grant program is used, a copy of the guidelines for that program must be referenced and attached to the State grant narrative.
F. State Foresters shall establish schedules that take into account reporting deadlines for application and award of funding for watershed forestry projects in priority watersheds. State Foresters may award funds for watershed forestry projects to communities, local governments, nonprofit groups, and nonindustrial private forest landowners.
VI. Priority Watershed Criteria.
A. Selection Criteria. The State Forester, in consultation with the State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committee or equivalent body (SFSCC), should select one or more priority watersheds in that State to target watershed forestry projects for funding. The number and size of priority watersheds selected should be limited to those that can be effectively addressed with the funds available. The SFSCC should also identify the rationale for selection of the priority watershed, the specific needs for watershed restoration or conservation in the selected watershed(s), the desired outcomes from using WFAP funds, and means of coordinating with other States where priority watersheds cross State boundaries. In selecting priority watersheds, States should consider one or more of the following categories of water resource issues where forests and forestry practices can protect or restore watersheds:
1. Drinking Water Supplies. Forested lands typically produce high-quality water. Types of watershed forestry projects to address drinking water supply issues include protecting and maintaining forest cover, ensuring effective BMP implementation, and restoring forests and watersheds which contain a source of municipal or community drinking water supplies. Data on source water protection areas is available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and from individual State source water protection programs.
Quality Impairments from
3. Urban Runoff. Strategically planted trees in urban areas can protect water quality and reduce the impacts of runoff from impervious surfaces. Types of urban watershed forestry projects include projects 1) that incorporate trees in plans to treat stormwater runoff; 2) that promote “green infrastructure” concepts which help reduce runoff and maintain functional watersheds; and 3) that enhance tree canopy in urbanized areas to reduce the contamination of surface water from polluted runoff. Data on land use change, trends in conversion away from forest land use, and rising percent impervious surface is available from States or the Natural Resource Conservation Service National Resource Inventory.
4. Wetland and Riparian Forests. Wetland and riparian forests are critical habitat for wildlife and aquatic organisms and serve as filters for adjacent and upstream pollution sources. Wetland and riparian forests help maintain fully functioning watersheds and streams. Identification of the extent of loss and the ability to achieve restoration benefits are useful in determining project locations. Types of watershed forestry projects include those to protect, manage, and restore riparian and wetland areas. Data on existing wetlands are found in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory. Hydric soils, a typical factor in identifying wetland restoration potential, are identified in county soil surveys. Riparian buffers are identified from U.S. Geological Survey stream files.
5. Watershed Risk Related to
6. Other Issues or Stresses Addressed through Forestry. States may identify other factors for identifying a priority watershed not specified in the list above. The State Forester should identify and justify the other factors in the State grant narrative. Types of watershed forestry projects that address additional issue or stressors include special BMPs, restoration practices, removing exotic invasive woody species that negatively affect stream health, and habitat improvement actions aimed at aquatic species and aquatic health. Data on imperiled, threatened and endangered aquatic and amphibian species, aquatic resources, erodible soils are available from the FWS and NRCS.
B. Other considerations. When selecting a priority watershed, States may consider additional items that are essential to successful implementation, such as:
C. Reporting. State Foresters shall provide annual reports on priority watershed identification as outlined in Section IX.B. If a priority watershed meets more than one of the water resource issues identified in Section VI.A, the primary category should be identified. If States have not identified one or more priority watersheds for targeted watershed forestry project funding, an explanation should be supplied in the grant narrative.[F2]
VII. State Grants for Technical and Educational Assistance.
Subsections A. through B. of this section are to be funded from the national allocation for technical, educational, and other related assistance. A maximum of 25 percent of the national allocation shall be for this type of assistance.
A. Technical Assistance Program.
Technical assistance to promote the watershed forestry assistance program may include, but is not limited to, providing the following:
B. Educational Assistance.
2. WFAP education programs may be integrated with existing education programs provided by other agencies and organizations or new initiatives.
3. The audiences for WFAP education programs will include individuals and natural resource professionals with responsibilities related to watershed and forest resource management on nonfederal land, such as: nonindustrial private forest landowners, nonprofit organizations, watershed councils, and communities (including local governments and homeowner associations).
4. WFAP education programs should use and leverage existing resources of agencies and organizations that have demonstrated expertise in educational program design and delivery. These agencies and organizations could include the following:
a. The Cooperative Extension System as a key partner, with representatives who serve on State Forest Stewardship Coordinating Committees or equivalent bodies and provide expertise used in WFAP education programs.
b. Other State and local organizations, agencies and educational institutions with expertise in design, delivery and evaluation of educational programs.
5. To ensure adequacy and relevancy of proposed programs, development of WFAP education programs should include a wide range of partners and stakeholders.
VIII. Financial Cost-Share Assistance for Watershed Forester, BMP Programs and Watershed Forestry Projects.
At least seventy-five percent of the national allocation shall be made available to participating States for State watershed forester positions, watershed forestry projects and best-management practices programs. State cost-share is required as defined in Section II.
A. Watershed Forester. State Foresters may use WFAP funds for a State watershed forester who can also engage in and administer State best management practices program. This position may be a regional position with responsibility in more than one State, or a shared position with another agency/organization such as Extension or water quality or resource conservation agency. States should identify their strategy to implement the new and additional hours funded to effectively carry out the watershed forestry program and projects, with staffing details and deliverable results, explained in the State grant narrative.
BMP/watershed forester position responsibilities may include but are not limited to:
B.State Forestry Best-Management Practices Programs. State Foresters may use WFAP funds for development or enhancement of State-wide Forestry BMP programs. State Foresters shall report annually as outlined in Section IX.C on the accomplishments of this program.
C. Watershed Forestry Projects in Priority Watersheds. State Foresters may use WFAP funds for watershed forestry projects in priority watersheds.
1. Eligibility. All communities, local governments, watershed organizations, nonprofit groups, and nonindustrial private forest landowners located within a State-designated priority watershed are eligible to apply for and receive assistance under WFAP without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, disability, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. In cases where a public-private partnership will conduct a project, State agencies may receive funds to fulfill their portion of project work.
2. Watershed Forestry Project Elements And Objectives. Watershed forestry projects should accomplish watershed protection, management and restoration needs and demonstrate the value of forests to watershed health and condition through:
· The use of trees as solutions to water quality and quantity problems in urban and rural areas.
· Community-based planning, involvement and action through State, local and nonprofit partnerships that incorporate watershed forestry practices.
· Application and dissemination of science, technology, and monitoring information on forestry best management practices relating to watershed forestry.
· Watershed-scale forest management activities and conservation planning.
· The restoration of wetland (as defined by the States) and riparian forests.
· The establishment and maintenance of riparian vegetative buffers.
· Reduction of flooding and stormwater runoff, as well as management of water flows.
· The mitigation of existing, chronic sources of water quality degradation in the non-federal forest environment.
3. Financial Assistance for Watershed Forestry Projects in Priority Watersheds. The State Forester shall make awards to communities, nonprofit groups, local governments, and nonindustrial private forest landowners for watershed forestry projects in priority watersheds that address the program elements and objectives. The State Forester will require watershed forestry projects grantees to:
· Coordinate efforts among multiple partners, landowners and/or projects to leverage funds and accomplish the project goals.
· Provide a timeframe for the project completion and information on outyear funding requirements and plans.
· Document measurable results in priority watershed health and management.
· Provide procedures to protect the public investment on non-Federal lands.
· Assure that the required non-federal cost-share is achieved.
· Submit watershed forestry project reports that provide the information required in Section IX.D.
IX. Reporting and Monitoring.
State Foresters shall annually report program accomplishments in four categories – State-wide Watershed Forestry Program Capacity (Section IX.A), Forestry Best Management Practices Programs (Section IX.B), Watershed Forester Position (Section IX.C), and Watershed Forestry Projects (Section IX.D). Annual reports shall be submitted to the Responsible Official. Approximately every three years, State Foresters and USDA Forest Service will jointly assess the status of State watershed forestry assistance programs.
A. State-wide Watershed Forestry Program Capacity. State Foresters shall assess the program indicators outlined below and provide an overall rating – red, yellow, green – based on evidence of performance and professional judgment. A brief narrative explaining the rating shall be provided.
a. Green -- Dedicated Position
b. Yellow -- Partial Position
c. Red -- No Position
a. Green – Comprehensive published Best Management Practices that cover all applicable silviculture operations and have been approval by the State water quality agency.
b. Yellow – Partial set of BMPs only and/or no approval or acknowledgement of the BMPs by the State water quality agency.
c. Red – No BMPs.
a. Green -- Routine, State-wide BMP implementation monitoring (compliance) and some level of BMP effectiveness monitoring. conducted on a regular established interval (annual, 2 yr, etc.).
b. Yellow -- Limited or intermittent implementation monitoring and/or no effectiveness monitoring
c. Red -- No regular BMP monitoring of any type
a. Green – Formal, documented involvement in multiple watershed partnerships (e.g. active involvement, a recognized entity, etc.).
b. Yellow – Involved in limited partnerships but only informally and not officially recognized.
c. Red – No involvement in watershed partnerships.
a. Green – Documented, formal training (e.g. workshops, classes, field exercises, etc.) in watershed forest management and/or BMPs for diverse stakeholders (e.g. loggers, landowners, community groups, etc.).
b. Yellow – Informal training and/or reaching limited stakeholders (e.g. just reaching landowners).
c. Red – No education or training activities.
a. Green – Providing comprehensive field guidance to diverse stakeholders on watershed forestry management and BMPs (e.g. assisting a landowner in developing a watershed forestry plan or assisting a logger in BMP implementation).
b. Yellow – Limited field guidance and/or reaching limited stakeholders.
c. Red – No technical assistance provided.
B. Forestry Best-Management Practices Programs. If WFAP funds are used for forestry BMP programs, State Foresters shall provide a narrative describing overall strategy for development and enhancement of State-wide BMP programs and will report annually on the following accomplishments:
a. BMP implementation monitoring.
· Number of forestry sites evaluated for BMP implementation.
· Number of treated acres evaluated.
· Rate of statewide BMP implementation.
b. BMP training and education.
· Number of BMP workshops sponsored or participated in
· Total number of individuals trained (workshops and individually)
· Number of landowners trained.
· Number of loggers trained.
· Number of forestry professionals trained.
c. BMP Technical Assistance.
· Number of landowners contacted and/or visited.
· Number of acres affected by recommended practices.
· Volume (mgd) of water from forestland receiving BMP assistance.
C. Watershed Forester Position. If WFAP funds are used for a watershed forester position, State Foresters shall provide a narrative describing overall strategy to effectively carry out the watershed forestry program and projects with staffing details and deliverable results.
D. Projects in Priority Watersheds.
a. A brief overview of the watershed forestry project including project description and goals plus photographs and watershed map showing location of activities.
b. Project budget and partnerships.
· Number of partners (government agencies, community groups, watershed associations, conservation organizations, private landowners, etc.) and leveraged funding or in-kind services provided by each.
c. Watershed Activities.
· Number of acres restored (e.g. acres restored to forest cover following catastrophic fires, acres of altered wetlands restored, urban storm water management, etc).
· Number of acres protected (e.g., watershed plan or local restrictions, etc.).
· Number of acres managed (e.g. BMP implementation, ground-water recharge areas, municipal water supply basins).
· Number of stream miles restored (BMPs, riparian buffers established).
· Number of stream miles protected (BMPs, riparian buffers identified).
· Number of watershed plans completed (and associated acreage).
d. Watershed Outcomes. A brief narrative linking watershed activities to watershed forestry project goals and overall impact of project on water quality and watershed health. Discussion of measured changes in watershed condition or water quality.
e. Priority Watershed Identification. State Foresters shall provide the following information for State-identified priority watersheds:
· Name of watershed (identifier) or place (map) and USGS HUC code.
· Size of watershed (acres).
· The category of water resource issues addressed (Section VI).
· The nature of watershed problems and the opportunities fo enhancement through watershed forestry.
· Percent of watershed in forest cover or potential for tree cover (approximate acreage).
· Percent of acreage in need of restoration and/or protection (if known).
· Primary and secondary public benefits of watershed forestry activities, such as:
o Provide source water protection.
o Improve water quality.
o Protect water quality.
o Improve water flows
o Reduce costs of water treatment.
o Reduce conversion from forest type.
o Maintain economic viability of forestry.
o Manage for and protect aquatic species.
o Manage for and protect threatened, endangered, and rare species.
o Restore and protect forested wetlands.
o Protect recreational uses of streams (fishable, swimmable).
o Reduce non-point source pollution.
o Protects for destructive wildfires.
X. Process for Allocating Funds to Forest Service Regions/Area.
A. State Grants for Technical Assistance, Education, and Planning. A maximum of twenty-five percent of the allocated funds shall be used by Forest Service (FS) Responsible Officials to provide direct non-matching grants to Participating States to support watershed forestry technical assistance, education, and planning efforts. Technical Assistance, Education and Planning funds are also used by the FS Washington Office and FS Regions/Area/IITF to fund program management functions. Total funding available for this use is apportioned to the Northeast, South, and Western Geographic Regions commensurate with the number of participating states and territories contained in that distribution area. States may also utilize a portion of these funds to support related activities performed by the Watershed Forester positions.
B. Cost-share Assistance for Watershed Forestry Projects, Watershed Foresters, and BMP Programs. A minimum of seventy-five percent of allocated funds shall be used by Forest Service (FS) Responsible Officials and Participating States to implement watershed forestry projects in priority watersheds, support a Watershed Forester position, and to develop, implement and monitor statewise BMPs. The Forest Service Washington Office distributes funds to the Northeastern Area, Southern Region/IITF, and seven western regions based on criteria that serve as indicators of watershed condition, potential for participation by non-federal landowners and communities, and those deriving benefit from the watershed forestry program. Criteria are determined on a state-by-state basis from currently available national data and a weight assigned based on both the relative importance of the criteria and the quality of the available data. This weight corresponds to a percentage of the national allocation. Criteria for determining the distribution of watershed forestry project funds are:
1. Watershed Condition and Need.
Criterion A: Miles of EPA 303d Impaired Waters. The number of miles of streams and shorelines in each State impaired by sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and temperature and the acres of impaired lake, estuary, and wetland as defined by EPA 303d listing. This criterion is used to represent the potential magnitude of watershed restoration and protection needs currently existing. Data source: EPA 303d listing of impaired waters. (Data source being evaluated.)
Alternate Criterion A (Proxy): Miles of Forest Stream and Shoreline Mileage. In the event that the 303d stream mileage proves to be unusable or inequitable, a measure of total stream mileage modified by percent non-federal forest land in a state will be used as a proxy. This measure would be used to address the potential extent of the problem or challenge faced for stream improvement and protection with deference to private forest lands. The states stream and shoreline mileage would be multiplied by the percent non-federal forest land to establish a state total. These would be added to form a national total. Example: Kentucky has 1000 miles of streams, at 80 percent private forests = 800 miles. If the national total is 100,000 miles, Kentucky rates at 8 percent of total.
Criterion B: Conversion of forests to other land uses. The total net acres of land in each State converted to non-forest uses over the last five years. This criterion is used as an indicator of watershed threat and impact. Land use conversion, especially to urban uses is a major factor in water quality and aquatic system decline. Data Source: NRI
2. Potential to Provide Public Benefits from Non-federal Forest Lands.
Criterion C: Area in Non-Federal Forest Ownership. The total acres of non-federal forest lands within the State. Privately owned and community forest lands have the potential to provide watershed benefits to communities by protecting soils, maintaining stream flow, and supporting aquatic ecosystems. These forests are also the target of this program. Data source: Forest Inventory and Analysis and NRI
Criterion D: Number of Non-Industrial Private Forest Landowners. The total number of private forest landowners in the State. Those managing private forest lands play a critical role in the ability to implement projects that will protect and restore watersheds and manage forests to prevent or enhance water quality. Data source: Forest Inventory and Analysis and NRI.
3. Demand for Watershed Assistance Program Benefits.
Criterion E: Number of Private/Non-profit Watershed and Conservation Organizations. The total number of 501(c)(3) watershed or conservation groups identified by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as primarily established for environmental protection, restoration, and natural resource management related purposes. These non-profit and private partners will be important partners in implementing local watershed-based efforts in the state. Data Source: IRS
Criterion F: Importance of Non-Federal Forests to Public Drinking Water Supplies. Total population depending upon surface water from public water supplies as a water source. The states total population served by municipal supplies using surface water supplies multiplied by the percent non-federal forest land establishes a state total which represents importance of forest lands to sustaining public water supplies. Data Source: EPA Community Source Water Protection Survey data, USGS Water Use Report.
Alternate Criterion F (proxy): Forest Dependent Population. If national level data for drinking water supplies cannot be obtained, the total population of each state multiplied by the percent non-federal forest land will be used as a proxy. Data Source: 2000 Census and NRI/FIA data
4. Future Criterion (Year 2 and beyond): State Forestry Agency Watershed Program Performance. In future years, as the program is implemented, the “Red/Yellow/Green” assessment of State program capacity may be used as an additional criterion to allocate funding based on State performance and potential for implementation of a comprehensive program (See Section IX.A). The measure will be the total number of states in each Geographic Region (Northeast, South and West) operating at the “green” level.
Several other criteria were considered but not included in the allocation criteria at this time due to redundancy or the availability of a suitable database for use. Data for criterion such as these could be developed in the future. They were: the number of high priority acres of agricultural or open lands suitable for afforestation, the actual acreage of afforestation, acreage of highly erodible soils, and the miles or acres of riparian and wetland areas in need of reforestation.
*Note: The following criterion and weightings are provided as a starting place for discussion and analysis. Final decisions on the criteria and their relative weighting will depend upon the final acquisition and testing of the various databases and an evaluation of the distribution of funds that results from the use of the available data. It is unknown at this time whether the criteria and weighting as described below will provide a distribution of funding appropriate to meet the needs of the program.
Unit of Measure
*Weight (% of $)
Watershed Condition and Need
(1) Impaired streams where forestry practices can be used to restore or protect water resources.
The number of miles of streams and shorelines in each State impaired by sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and temperature and the acres of impaired lake, estuary, and wetland.
EPA 303d list, NWI and national hydro-graphy
(2) Conversion of forests to other land uses
The total net acres of forest land in each State converted to non-forest uses over the last five years.
Potential Benefits from Watershed Forests
(3) Area in Non-federal Forest land
Total acres of non-federal forest lands by state
(4) Private Forest Landowners.
The total number of non-industrial private forest landowners in the State.
Opportunity/ Demand for Watershed Forestry Assistance
(5) Watershed and Conservation Groups and Organizations
The total number of non-profit watershed and conservation groups operating in the State.
IRS, River Network
(6) Importance of forests to public drinking water supply
Total population in state depending upon surface water from non-industrial forested watersheds as a municipal water source.
EPA Source Water Protection, FIA/NRI
Watershed Forestry Program Performance
(7) Capacity to implement a comprehensive Watershed Program
Total number of States with “green” rating of program capacity.
WFA Program Reporting
C. Calculation of Allocations to Geographic Areas. To determine the distribution of funds available for Watershed Forestry Projects, the FS Washington Office will divide the national allocation among the criterion according to their weight (percent). A National total for each Criterion will then be established by the FS Washington Office. Distribution by Geographic Regions (Northeast, South and West) will be based on the portions of the national total related to the states in that area. For example: if State A generates 10 percent of the national total for Criterion #1 and $1,000,000 is allocated to this criterion, the Geographic Region containing State A would receive a distribution of $100,000 for that criterion as part of its distribution.
D. Regional Competitive Pool Option. In the event that national funding for the Watershed Forestry Assistance Program falls short of authorization, distribution of available funds to all states may make it difficult to implement successful watershed forestry projects. In addition, administrative demands on limited funds may make grant programs inefficient and/or ineffective. In this case, the Responsible Official, in consultation with State Foresters, in each of three Geographic Regions may elect to distribute available project funds through establishment of a competitive grant pool. Grants under this option would be selected for funding by representatives of the FS and State Foresters in the FS Regions/Area/IITF.


Rapidly moving from one place to another, also known as sprinting, is an action that is required in many different sports and activities. Sprinting can be broken down into four different phases, each distinguishable from the others by comparing three different variables. These variables are stride length, stride frequency and ground contact time.
Video of the Day
The initial phase of sprinting is known as the starting block phase, where the sprinter is in contact with the blocks. This phase has the greatest amount of ground contact time, or the total time in which the feet are in contact with the ground or blocks. This is when force production is the greatest. With the rear leg producing force for only 45 percent of the contact time, the front leg is believed to be of more importance at the start. Stride length and stride frequency are not factors in this phase because the sprinter is not moving.
Once the sprinter takes off from the blocks, they begin to accelerate by increasing stride length and stride frequency. The length of this phase can be anywhere from 30 to 50 meters among top sprinters during a 100-meter race. During acceleration, the time in which the foot is in contact with the ground is relatively long in order to generate high levels of force, but decreases as the sprinter achieves maximum running speed.
Constant Speed Phase
The constant speed phase can be submaximal, maximal or supramaximal and is characterized by both the stride length and stride frequency remaining the same over a period of time. This phase is generally achieved between the 60 to 80 meter mark in men and 50 to 70 meter mark in women. In principle, the top sprinters can sustain this phase over a distance of 10 to 20 meters. The difference between elite and sub-elite sprinters is the frequency of stride, demonstrating that it is more important than the length of the stride.
The last phase is categorized by a decrease in sprinting speed, usually occurring between the 80 and 100-meter mark in top sprinters. Velocity begins to decrease on a scale of .5 to 1.5 meters per second and is caused by central and peripheral fatigue. The decrease in speed is mainly caused by a decrease in stride frequency, as stride length and ground contact time is increased when compared to the third sprinting phase.


What might Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, and a wide-range of other creative people have in common? Arguably, they practiced (whether simply part of their DNA or the result of honed discipline) 8 key behaviors.
I call these key behaviors, the 8Cs of Creativity. The first 4 behaviors are individual practices and the second 4 represent how teams work together to generate creative results. If you apply these steps, you will no doubt improve your own creative skills.
Take a moment to score yourself from 1 (low) to 10 (high) for each C. Use your scores to assess what you do well and where there may be room for improvement.
1. Conscious Observation: Purposely take in the world around you in a quest to find new ideas, concepts, or ways of doing things.
- When a new style of car drives by, do you notice it? (Heck, was the last street light you drove through green or red?)
- What was the wall color at the last restaurant you visited?
- What type of shoes is the closest person next to you wearing?
2. Capturize: It is not enough to consciously observe the world around you. You must also organize the information in a way that you can later access.
- Do you take photos of things that inspire or intrigue you so you can refer to them later?
- Do you keep a journal to capture ideas? Pinterest? Blog?
3. Contemplate: You must invest time in quiet reflection. Turn off the television, shut down the computer, silence the radio, and set time away from others to think.
- When was the last time you sat silently and thought about something – thinking is a business skill after all?
- Are you always surrounding yourself with noise? When you walk into a quiet room do you immediately turn on the television?
4. Contextualize: As you think about what you have observed and captured, uncover the meaning of what you see and how it relates to the roles you play.
- The next time your favorite store changes its displays, ask yourself why? Who are they trying to attract? What message are they trying to convey?
- Consider the names of new products that you see in the store – is there a theme out there that you should pay attention to?
5. Cross-Pollinate: Similar to moving pollen from one flower to another, people who effectively use the creative process take an idea and move it to another environment.
- What ideas have you exposed yourself to in one place that you could apply to your current situation?
- Are you facing a challenge that you can’t seem to solve using your old methods? Perhaps another industry can give you some insights.
6. Clamorize: The root word of clamorize is clamor. Clamor means commotion, uproar, and conflict. Individuals and teams should embrace conflict as they tackle problems, create new products, improve existing services, etc. Coming up with an idea, tearing it apart, and building something new from it is the essence of creativity.
- Does your team actively engage in discussions or do they look for the leader to provide the answer?
- Are people as passionate about brainstorming answers to a work challenge as they are to thinking about what they want to do over the weekend?
7. Crystallize: Crystallizing is the process a team follows to ultimately select the approach they will employ to address the challenges or take advantage of the opportunities they face.
- How does your team decide which idea wins? Consensus? Leader’s choice? Etc.?
- Is the decision-making process you use now working?
8. Critique: Creativity must include taking time to step back and assess what worked, what didn’t work, and what can be done better in the future. When put into practice, critiquing focuses on what we can learn from the experience.
- Are you so busy slaying the next dragon that the team fails to reflect on how the last effort went?
- Do you document what you learn so you don’t have to revisit the same issues again and again and again?
So, how did you do? What steps can you take today to move your scores in the right direction? Can you think of any Cs we left off the list?
(Note: The list came from an effort that I and my colleague, Scott Miller, undertook a few years ago on a project at FranklinCovey. If you don’t know FranklinCovey, I encourage you to check them out. Scott and I were working to capture the process we used to create marketing programs, identify strategic initiatives, and simply get things done in creative ways.)
Patrick Leddin, PhD is a speaker, global leadership consultant, and The Wall Street Journal bestselling author of The Five-Week Leadership Challenge. Patrick is an Associate Professor at Vanderbilt University with a thriving leadership blog and podcast, and 25-years of leadership experience. He offers an unparalleled mix of academic rigor and real-world experience.


CD47 - The New Frontier in Cancer Treatment?
CD47 is an abbrevation for the protein named Cluster of Differentiation 47. It is coded in the human gene also known as CD47. It is involved in a wide range of cellular functions, both in cell death, or apoptosis, as well as cell growth, or proliferation. It also plays a role in migration and adhesion.
CD47 also functions in several immune responses. For this reason, it is somewhat ironic that it may be one of the reasons many cancers can be so hard to kill. Normal, healthy cells carry this protein, so the immune system recognizes it as a friendly cell and does not attack. Cancer cells carry higher levels of CD47 than healthy cells. The immune system, therefore, does not attack the cancerous cells by itself, because it recognizes the cancer cells as normal body cells. The cancer is able to trick the immune system into leaving it alone. This is why up until now, most cancer treatments apart from resection are hard on the patient. It is often unavoidable to attack your healthy cells as well as the cancer cells. This has been true whether the treatment is systemic, such as chemotherapy, or a more isolated approach like radiation.
Initial Findings and Testing
For many years, researchers were convinced that there would never be one cure for all cancers. Many even thought there may even have to be different treatments for the same type of cancer. One of the reasons for this is there is never only one cause or origin of a type of cancer. Pancreatic cancer can be the result of several different types of mutations. The heterogeneity of cancer led scientists toward a relatively new concept called targeted therapy. Because the same cancer can be caused by a wrong expression of a different gene in different individuals, what is effective treatment for one person may not be for another.
Then in the early part of the previous decade, biology researcher Irving Weissman of Stanford found that in blood cancers such as lymphoma and leukemia, the protein CD47 was overexpressed in the cancer cells. As previously stated, CD47 serves as a type of identification code to help macrophages recognize the cell as one of the body’s own. However, the fact that it is also expressed at higher levels in cancer cells enables them to hide from the immune system. A few years after this discovery, in 2007, a CD47 antibody was injected into a mouse that had been injected with human leukemia cells. A day later, the mouse astonishingly had no sign of the disease.
There is a concern to this therapy when injecting it into a human with a human cancer. If the antibody strips the protein from the cancer cell, that it might also strip it away from normal cells as well. In mice, however, this did not happen. The only side effect was a decrease in red blood cells, but no other normal tissues were affected.
Researchers had hoped and perhaps expected to find the overexpression of the protein in a few other cancers. Their expectations were pleasantly exceeded. The overexpression of CD47 was found in every single type of cancer they tested. Not just blood cancers, but solid tumor cancers such as liver, ovarian, bladder, colon, brain, and prostate. So far, the type of cancers investigated has reached 20, and all are positive for the overexpression of CD47.
When the solid tumor cancers were tested in mice, they experienced similar results. Large solid tumors did not necessarily disappear, but they were shrunk and prevented from metastasizing. Small solid tumors were either shrunk or disappeared altogether. Even if a large tumor is not completely eradicated by the antibody, if it is made smaller and prevented from metastasis, it can then be either resected or further attacked by radiation.
On the Horizon
Stanford has obtained a $20 million grant to pursue this further. At present date, they expect to start human clinical trials in mid 2014. It is necessary for them first to craft a version of the antibody specifically tailored to the human system. The version of the CD47 antibody used in mice is incompatible in humans. Hypothesized levels to inject humans must also be optimized.
If the human system is only capable of taking a certain level of an antibody at any one time, multiple treatments and injections may be required for large tumor burdens. In blood cancers, localization may be a difficulty due to the fact that they have no solid tumors, the cancer cells are spread throughout the blood in the body.
Despite these concerns, researchers seem to be cautiously optimistic that it is possible for this to be a huge breakthrough in cancer treatment. The antibody does not carry the same type of side effects that chemotherapy drugs have. Killing of healthy cells appears to be at a minimum. The initial phase trials will be very telling of how rapid this proposed therapy could advance.


Changyuraptor yangi is a newly-described microraptorine dromaeosaur dinosaur from the early Cretaceous (Yixian formation) of Liaoning, China.
The animal would have been around 4 feet long in life, and its fossil shows that it was covered in feathers — including, as in its smaller cousin Microraptor, a pair of "leg wings" represented by long paired pennaceous feathers on the metatarsals and tibiotarsus. One of Changyuraptor's most unique features is its voluminous tail feathers, and these feathers constitute the longest of any known non-avian dinosaur, with the most distal retrices reaching around 30 cm in length.
Changyuraptor is also by far the largest "four-winged" dinosaur known, and while this might not be as big of a deal as it sounds (given that there aren't very many "four-winged" dinosaurs), it does show that small size wasn't necessarily the gatekeeper to certain volant adaptations. I personally doubt that this animal was doing anything approaching powered flight, but the long tail feathers and multiple sets of long, well-developed lifting surfaces may have been a boon to gliding and controlled descent. The exceptionally long tail feathers therefore might have been used as a sort of "pitch control" device, wherein a large, relatively heavy animal would have needed especially fine-tuned control over rapid falls onto prey or in safe landings from higher ground. As Buzz Lightyear would say, "This isn't flying, it's falling with style!"
Gouache paint on A3-size hot-pressed illustration board, approx. 5-6 hours.
Gang Han et al. 2014. "A new raptorial dinosaur with exceptionally long feathering provides insights into dromaeosaurid flight performance". Nature Communications. 5: 4382.


You’ve come to a good place if you’ve ever wondered about Non-Fungible Tokens. This article covers the basics of NFTs, including what they are, why they’re used, and how to make your own. This article will help you get started, regardless of whether you are a computer expert or a total novice. You can also check out the upcoming ICOs to learn more about NFTs.
What Is a Non-Fungible Token NFT?
A Non-Fungible Token is a digital asset that cannot be duplicated. A Non-Fungible Token, unlike cryptocurrencies, cannot be copied or resold indefinitely. In the world of blockchain, it represents digital art, collectibles, crypto domain names, and even ownership records. They use the same technology as cryptocurrencies, and have proven to be extremely popular.
NFTs raise philosophical questions about ownership. NFTs are seen as unworkable by critics who claim that a single piece can be copied and sold in endless quantities. Proponents of NFTs argue that most collecting is motivated by aesthetics and not intrinsic value. Some paintings hang in museums, while others end up in thrift stores. What is a Nonfungible Token?
To understand how a Non Fungible Token works, it is important to understand the basic concept behind NFTs. Tokens are unique digital assets that can be traded using cryptocurrency. The non-fungible type digital assets are secure, unique, and tamper-resistant. OpenSea, a prime example, is a non-fungible token. OpenSea is a user-owned digital goods marketplace powered by the Ethereum blockchain.
What are non-fungible tokens? The first thing to understand is that a NFT is a digital asset, not a physical asset. The creator of an NFT has decided how many copies of the asset should be printed and sold, and the number of replicas will be made. Some copies will be exact duplicates, while others may have minor differences like the assigned seat on a concert tickets. These differences are important as a NFT is not the same as a copyright.
NFTs offer many benefits. For one thing, they democratize investing. Tokenization can be extended to other assets because digital real estate is easier for multiple owners to divide. Paintings, for example, don’t necessarily need a single owner. Multiple owners can increase the painting’s value. This is great news for digital art. The NFT concept is already generating huge sales for the digital art community.
Anyone Can Make NFTs
There are many ways to earn money with cryptocurrency, and one of the easiest is to sell NFTs. These digital coins can be used for buying and selling anything. These digital coins can be used to buy and sell digital art, collectibles or virtual trading cards. It is possible to sell photos using NFTs. This is simple. These coins can be converted to cash by finding buyers.
To sell NFTs, you must sign up and connect your wallet to an NFT marketplace. Fill out as much information as possible about yourself and what you want to sell. Once you’re done, upload your NFT file and enter a description. Finally, set a price. You can also choose to sell your NFTs via auction or fixed-price sale. Although there are many NFT-selling websites online, it will take some effort to make money.
How to make NFTs
In the world of collectibles, NFTs are digital assets that are uniquely identifiable on the blockchain. NFTs are not exchangeable like other digital assets. Common NFT assets include images, videos, music, GIFs, and collectibles. Here are some ways to create and sell your own NFTs. Let’s look at each one in more detail. Below are the key steps to creating your NFTs.
The first step in minting NFTs is to decide the sale process. It can be a timed auction, fixed price, or unlimited auction. Once you have decided on the method you want, you will need to decide how much you would like to make from each transaction. The default periods are one week, three or more days. Make sure to remember that there are fees associated with each transaction, which you should consider when deciding on your price range.
Promoting and marketing an NFT is the second step in creating one. You must market your NFTs, and build a community around them. Your work should be promoted to maximize exposure. NFT copyright laws are difficult to enforce, so tread lightly when promoting your creation. You must consider who you are trying reach. You must be able to sell your product.
The NFT market is attracting cryptocurrency investors, but they aren’t sure what to expect. These coins are now worth a lot more than they were a few years ago, and the NFT marketplace is still young. NFTs have high risks and investors are often unsure how to identify promising metaverse stocks. There are ways to identify promising NFTs and make instant millionaires.
Procedural collections are the main moneymaker. These mint NFTs randomly based upon attributes. The exact shade of gray used to mint the $3mil rock is an example. This colour scheme is extremely rare in the NFT Collection. According to Cointelegraph the NFT Millionaires collection is worth $10 billion. While the price of individual NFTs may vary, the price of the entire set remains relatively stable.
The NFTs are digital collectibles based on Blockchain technology. While anyone can view these collectibles they can only be claimed to be the legitimate owner by the NFT owner. Ghozali, a successful art collector, took selfies over five years between 2017 and 2021. She uploaded her NFTs to the OpenSea marketplace in December 2021. But the story doesn’t end there. Ghozali’s NFTs will now be sold on the NFT market for up to $24 billion.
How to make money as a beginner with nfts 10
NFTs can be confusing for beginners. The good news is that NFTs have an actual market value and people are making hundreds of thousands of dollars off of them. If you’re a beginner, there are some steps you need to take to get started. These steps are not as difficult as you might think.
To start your NFTs journey, you’ll need ETH. You can store your ETH using Coinbase, but this account is not compatible with NFT purchases. Instead, you should use MetaMask, a popular Web 3.0 wallet that is trusted by millions of people. This wallet will allow you to quickly access a wide range of blockchain apps. For beginners, it is best to start small.
Next, you’ll want to market your NFTs. Your marketing is crucial as it can make or break your sale of your goods. So, when you’re selling NFTs, make sure to add a description of your collection along with a title and URL to the marketplace where your NFTs are being sold. This way, you’ll be more likely to make sales and gain a following of NFT buyers.
How to Flip NFTs
One of the most popular ways to make money in the metaverse is to buy and sell NFTs. Flipping NFTs can be a lucrative venture, but it is also risky. Therefore, traders should use fundamental strategies to minimize their risks and maximize their profits. Find out how to make the most of NFTs to maximize your profit. Here are some tips to help you get started. First, find a game with limited NFTs. The general rule is that the less NFTs in circulation, the lower their value. The same goes for NFTs. The more popular a game, the greater the demand.
Second, create a community of NFT enthusiasts to help you find potential buyers. This will enable you to identify lucrative projects, thereby maximizing your return. Trading NFTs is a great way of making money in the web3 market, but it requires significant research and awareness. You can also connect with fellow NFT enthusiasts on social media, where you can find upcoming projects in the early stages. Listen to Twitter Spaces for feedback from those who have been around the space for some time.
How to buy NFTs
If you’re looking to buy NFTs, you’ve probably wondered how to go about it. There are many options for purchasing these tokens. You can choose to sell them privately, or use auction houses or online marketplaces. Once you’ve funded your crypto wallet, the process is relatively easy. You’ll simply need to choose one of the different sale formats and then submit a bid to buy the NFT. A confirmation splash screen will be displayed to let you know if the NFT was successfully purchased.
While many of these sites have an extensive selection of NFTs, you can also use filters to find the types of NFTs you’re interested in. Two famous collections of NFTs are CryptoPunks or Bored Ape Yacht Club. Imitators and scammers have the opportunity to profit from the unregulated NFT market. Look for platforms with verified accounts of well-known creators to protect yourself from being scammed.


Reverse Engineering of a Common Product:
A Systems and Global Engineering Project
This telecollaborative project is designed to provide students in grades 9-12 with an orientation to systems engineering concepts. Students will be provided with an overview of systems thinking including the systems model. Through guided activities students will reverse-engineer a common device that contains both electrical and mechanical components and then create a systems diagram for the deconstructed device. Students will create reassembly instructions and diagrams that partner schools worldwide will use in their attempt to reconstruct the device. This project provides the background needed to encourage teachers and students to participate in more advanced collaborative design activities.
There is NO fee to participate however we do ask you to register first. To do so, go to the Instructions and Help section.
If you are new to this project, please read the project Instructions and Schedule , and then register to join. Also, feel free to look at the list of schools currently registered for the project.
If you have any problems, don't hesitate to contact the Project Leader .


David Hume was born three hundred years ago, in 1711. The world has changed radically since his time, and yet many of his ideas and admonitions remain deeply relevant, though rather neglected, in the contemporary world. These Humean insights include the central role of information and knowledge for adequate ethical scrutiny, and the importance of reasoning without disowning the pertinence of powerful sentiments. They also include such practical concerns as our responsibilities to those who are located far away from us elsewhere on the globe, or in the future.
Hume's influence on the nature and reach of modern thinking has been monumental. From epistemology to practical reason, from aesthetics to religion, from political economy to philosophy, from social and cultural studies to history and historiography, the intellectual world was transformed by the enlightening power of his mind. In his own time, Hume’s ideas encountered considerable resistance from more orthodox thinkers. One result of this was his being rejected for philosophy chairs first at Edinburgh University and then at the University of Glasgow. Yet the influence of Hume’s ideas has grown steadily and powerfully over time. Indeed, as Nicholas Phillipson remarks in his insightful biography David Hume: The Philosopher as Historian: “David Hume’s reputation has never been higher.”
And yet some of Hume’s central but more iconoclastic ideas have not been brought adequately into contemporary discussion. This neglect continues despite the veneration of Hume as the quintessential “grand philosopher” of the Enlightenment. Many of Hume’s widely cited statements, which are often seen as “David Hume in summary,” fail to capture the largeness of the “understanding”—to use one of his favorite words—that Hume presented to us. The job is not made any easier by Hume’s tendency to make occasional remarks that suggest that he is “forgetting, or mis-stating, his [own] normative beliefs,” as Derek Parfit has recently pointed out in his farreaching philosophical work On What Matters. The issue is of importance, since some of the points that Hume seems to overlook in his occasional remarks had received decisive argumentative support in his own writings.
I BEGIN WITH a perspicacious remark that Hume made in 1751, in an essay called “Of Justice,” to be published later in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. In the early days of the increasing globalization in which Hume lived, with new trade routes and expanding economic relations across the world, Hume talked about the growing need to think afresh about the nature of justice, as we come to know more about people living elsewhere, with whom we have come to develop new relations:
Again suppose, that several distinct societies maintain a kind of intercourse for mutual convenience and advantage, the boundaries of justice still grow larger, in proportion to the largeness of men’s views, and the force of their mutual connexions. History, experience, reason sufficiently instruct us in this natural progress of human sentiments, and in the gradual enlargement of our regards to justice, in proportion as we become acquainted with the extensive utility of that virtue.
The remark is of interest in itself, and also helps us to understand the general idea of justice, and its particular application to global justice, that can be seen to be part of the Humean line of analysis. But it can also be used to illustrate Hume’s general arguments for the need to interrelate ethics and epistemology, and moral reasoning and human sentiments.
The underlying approach to justice here contrasts with the influential view of Hobbes, according to which there has to be a sovereign state for us to entertain any coherent idea of justice. Hobbes was moved by the idea that institutional demands of justice can be met only within the limits of a functioning sovereign state, which is needed to establish and support the required institutions. While Hume was deeply concerned about the importance of institutions, on which he made many penetrating observations, he was reluctant to allow the idea of justice to be narrowed by the boundaries of sovereignty, as if there were no issues of global justice that could take us beyond our national borders.
The overarching concern in the idea of justice is the need to have just relations with others—and even to have appropriate sentiments about others; and what motivates the search is the diagnosis of injustice in ongoing arrangements. In some cases, this might demand the need to change an existing boundary of sovereignty—a concern that motivated Hume’s staunchly anti-colonial position. (He once remarked, “Oh! How I long to see America and the East Indies revolted totally & finally.”) Or it might relate to the Humean recognition that as we expand trade and other relations with foreign countries, our sentiments as well as our reasoning have to take note of the recognition that “the boundaries of justice still grow larger,” without the necessity to place all the people involved in our conception of justice within the confines of one sovereign state.
As it happens, contemporary theories of justice have largely followed the Hobbesian route rather than the Humean one. They have tended to limit their considerations of justice within the boundaries of a particular state. In an important essay in 2005 called “The Problem of Global Justice,” Thomas Nagel explained that “if Hobbes is right, the idea of global justice without a world government is a chimera.” The most influential modern theory of justice, namely John Rawls’s theory of “justice as fairness,” presented in his epoch-making book A Theory of Justice, concentrates on the identification of appropriate “principles of justice” that fix the “basic institutional structure” of a society, in the form of a cluster of ideal institutions for a sovereign state. This confines the principles of justice to the members of a particular sovereign state. It is worth noting that in a later work, The Law of Peoples, Rawls invokes a kind of “supplement” to this one-country pursuit of the demands of justice—but in dealing with people elsewhere, Rawls’s focus is not on justice, but on the basic demands of civilized and humane behavior across the borders.
Nagel, too, confines his analysis of global propriety not to the demands of justice, but to a “minimal humanitarian morality,” since he, too, takes the view that it is “very difficult to resist Hobbes’s claim about the relation between justice and sovereignty.” Hume’s exploration of how “the boundaries of justice” must “grow larger” in a more globalized world contrasts quite sharply with the Hobbesian way of thinking, and thus differs from the approach chosen by most of the contemporary theorists of justice. His approach has many implications for the way we should explore the idea of justice (a question I have attempted to address in my book The Idea of Justice, which draws also on other Enlightenment thinkers, particularly Adam Smith, Condorcet, and Mary Wollstonecraft).
THE REMARK BY HUME that I have cited throws light also on other parts of the understanding of ethics, epistemology, and practical reasoning that Hume presented. First, the remark fits well with Hume’s general argument that the understanding of justice must depend on what we know—that it is hard to make ethics stand free of epistemology. If there is a “gradual enlargement of our regards to justice” resulting from our expanding global contacts, this relates to Hume’s insistence that we cannot treat ethics as a freestanding field, dissociated from our understanding of the world, including what we know about each other. If we know nothing, or almost nothing, about a group of people, it is hard to talk about their needs, entitlements, or freedoms. We have good reason to pay more attention to the lives of others as we acquire greater knowledge of their lives, along with our growing connections with them.
Moreover, this understanding is not only important for ethics as a discipline, it tends also to be reflected, Hume argued, in people’s sentiments about whether we must take note of the lives of distant people as we come to know more about them. Hume clearly thought that this was a reasonable thing to do, and also that people’s sentiments would actually be influenced in precisely such a direction through the impact of their greater knowledge about others elsewhere. Hume’s understanding that the broadening of our concern is not only what reason demands, but what will affect our actual sentiments, makes such broadening difficult to brush off, since (as he put it in dealing with a related issue) “what affects us, we conclude can never be a chimera; and as our passion is engag’d on the one side or the other, we naturally think that the question lies within human comprehension; which, in other cases of this nature, we are apt to entertain some doubt of.”
The congruence of reason and sentiment, in this case, is in line with a general claim that Hume made elsewhere, in a somewhat exaggerated form (a form that he never seemed to spurn): that “reason and sentiment concur in almost all moral determinations and conclusions.” That such a concurrence could easily occur is worth noting partly because Hume also discussed cases in which there was no such concurrence (at least not spontaneously), and also because many formulations of “Hume in summary” concentrate almost exclusively on Hume’s remarks denigrating the role of reason in morality, in favor of sentiments, without noting that he did see them to be interrelated.
In the “summary Hume” that is frequently aired, it is also quite common to quote Hume against the possibility of reasoned ethics—for example, his speculation that reason is a “slave to the passions,” or his observation that “the rules of morality ... are not conclusions of our reason.” There are so many different things that Hume said on the relation between reason and ethics that it would be presumptuous of me to search here for some kind of definitive clarification of his overall position on the connections involved. But it is worth noting that immediately preceding the remark just quoted, about rules of morality not being conclusions of reason, Hume declares: “Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular.” (The italics are added.) The qualification “of itself” is important to note. This is, in fact, not an argument that reason is unimportant for morality or for motivating action. It argues only that reason cannot accomplish this entirely on its own.
Reason has to be about something, and clearly other factors, such as our knowledge of facts, are also involved in morality and practical reasoning (on which Hume wrote extensively). For reasoning to be influential in our lives and decisions, moreover, it has to sway people’s actual sentiments. (On this Hume also said a great deal.) This understanding can be seen in the context of delineating the way reasoning can work. These exercises of delineation do not in themselves undermine the important role of reasoning in ethics, nor entail any denial of the usefulness of reasoned argument about what we actually do know, or what our sentiments really are, or what they could be expected to be after critical scrutiny.
Hume had much use for reason whenever it could be sensibly deployed. The totality of his works richly illustrates his reason-dependent approach. While Hume expressed his frustration that “avidity alone, of acquiring goods and possessions for ourselves and our nearest friends” might well be “insatiable, perpetual, universal, and directly destructive of society,” or that people very often are too guided by self-interest in their thinking about justice, he also argued that there could be “moderation and abstinence” based on a reasoned understanding of the mutual dependence of people on each other. He points out, for example, that people “pull the oars of a boat by common convention for common interest, without any promise or contract,” and that their sense of justice is developed by thinking in “company and conversation.” The recognition that much of practical reasoning is conducted in company—a point that Gramsci would emphasize powerfully in his essays inL’Ordine Nuovo two centuries later—does not undermine the role of reasoning, but helps to characterize how it tends to occur.
The characterization also includes Hume’s treatment of what he called “experimental reasoning … which we possess in common with beasts, and on which the whole conduct of life depends.” At one level, this is, as Hume argued, “nothing but a species of instinct or mechanical power.” But experimental reasoning does not imply any absence of reasoning. The instinct that makes a person reluctant to put his or her hand into the fire is, as Hume discussed, both an instinct and an example of a species of reasoning. The instinct to keep our hand out of the fire is not unrelated to our seeing—and learning from others—what happens if an object like a hand happens to go into the fire, and this is what experimental reasoning is about. The net effect of this dual role is to extend the reach of reasoning—even to animals (the discussion cited here comes in an essay called “Of the Reason of Animals”)—rather than to deny that this type of decision could be compatible with any kind of reasoning since it is, in an immediate sense, just an instinct.
SIMILARLY, HUME’S insistence that the reach of ethical reasoning is, of necessity, limited is also a part of this delineation. Indeed, Hume thought that reasoning has a confined reach even in central issues of epistemology. We may not ever be able, as Hume points out, to “satisfy ourselves concerning any determination, which we may form, with regard to the origin of worlds, and the situation of nature, from, and to eternity.” But this did not prevent Hume from trying to see what can be sorted out through reasoning. Indeed, it is these efforts of reasoning that made Hume such a suspicious character to the religious establishment of his time. We have reason to pursue knowledge to the extent we can, undeterred by the recognition that we may not be able to resolve all the issues that arouse our interest and curiosity.
Great harm has been done to contemporary decision theory and the theory of rational choice by the presumption that reasoning can be given a role only if it is able to resolve every decisional problem. Indeed, understanding the incompleteness of our ordered information about the world, or stopping at incomplete—but articulate—orderings of alternative courses of action, is an integral part of human reasoning. The large subject of learning to rely on partial resolution, which is quite crucial in modern social choice theory, clearly has Humean antecedents. The usefulness of reasoning is not dependent on its being able to solve every problem at hand.
This understanding, which is still inadequately appreciated in decisional analysis, was championed already by Hume more than a quarter of a millennium ago. And I should add here that even the Hobbesian insistence on the need for a sovereign state for the possibility of saying anything coherent about justice, which allegedly makes any contemporary statements on “global justice” to be a “chimera,” closely relates to the assumption that no idea of justice can be viable unless it is able to resolve every putative claim of injustice. In this “all or nothing” view, we cannot seek an enhancement of justice through preventing famines, genocides, or gross subjugation of women in the world until a global sovereign state starts functioning and can meet all the institutional needs of a globally just world. This is indeed a far cry from Hume’s understanding of the gradual enlargement of “the boundaries of justice” in the world. And that understanding remains critically relevant as we try to remove patent injustices that plague our world.
WE LIVE IN a world in which a global vision is of extraordinary importance, and many of Hume’s arguments—on the broadening of the boundaries of justice, on the importance of knowledge in ethics, on the diversity of forms that human reasoning can take—are of central importance to such a vision. Our interdependent lives make nationally isolated pursuits of justice (segregated through sovereign states, whether or not involving “sovereign debts”) altogether inadequate in the way that Hume already diagnosed them to be in his far less integrated world. Like his friend Adam Smith, he was much concerned with broadening the narrow limits of contemporary ethical thought—a need that remains alive today.There are many different implications of Hume’s arguments for the necessity of broadening the understanding of justice as our knowledge about other people expands. The connection between reasoned ethics and the “progress of human sentiments” may help to explain the emergence of the so-called “anti-globalization” movement as a search—despite its misleading name—for a new global ethics with rapidly expanding economic globalization. A sense of cross-border grievance about massive global inequalities, with a particular concentration on the lives of the most deprived people in the world, finds expression—often quite crude expression—in these typically disorderly movements, which bring citizens from rich and poor countries to assemble in protest, in one city after another, converging from across the world. If we see these cross-border agitations, despite their simplistic slogans and noisy protestation, as part of a groping for more global justice, broadly in line with Hume’s anticipation of a “natural progress of human sentiments,” then the underlying ethics of at least one large part of these movements becomes easier to understand.
The search for more justice in the global world can also benefit from the Humean admonition about the need for empirical knowledge, particularly—in this case—about what works and what does not work (a subject that is central to contemporary development economics). This applies not only, say, to different forms of aid and assistance, but also to the role of education and health care in advancing development, including economic progress. Empirical understanding is also relevant for assessing how the market economy works, what it achieves and what it does not. If the economic crisis of 2008 is at least partly a reflection of being misled by the pure theory of infallible markets, it brings out sharply the practical importance of real knowledge about how markets can be expected actually to work.
The Humean pointer to the growing “boundaries of justice” with our knowledge about distant people also has immediate bearing on inter-generational ethics, particularly on the importance of a clearer understanding of the long-run impact of our environmental behavior on the lives of future people. The expansion of knowledge about how the lives and the predicaments of future generations may be affected by environmental deterioration, or—to take a different example—through nuclear proliferation, can much broaden the demands on the “boundaries of justice.” The importance of epistemology for ethics—for example, about whether or not there is “global warming” and to what extent human behavior is contributing to it—has never been stronger. This is particularly worth emphasizing, since the pursuit of serious knowledge relevant to justice, varying from economic causation to environmental connections, seems to be under some threat in the contemporary world.
Our world and our future may well depend on the understanding that we bring to bear on the interconnections between what we know, what we can reasonably expect, what we feel, what we have reason to consider, how our reasoning can come in many different forms, and how we should think about justice and injustice. There can be few things that are more important than that right now—no less than it was in Hume’s own time.
Amartya Sen teaches economics and philosophy at Harvard University and received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998. He is the author, most recently, of The Idea of Justice (Harvard University Press). A different version of this essay was given as a tricentennial commemorative lecture at Edinburgh University. This article originally appeared in the December 29, 2011, issue of the magazine.