I presently live in the eastern United States. At first, my primary interest in joining the Watershed Management Council was to become better informed on approaches from the west, obviously with the idea at the back of my mind that these approaches would be different from what is going on at the other end of the continent. I am pleasantly surprised that there are many areas of common ground. At a fundamental level, much of the WMC's thrust falls within the framework of applied landscape ecology. On the other hand, some of my anticipations of differences in orientation in the east versus the west still seem valid.

My anticipation had been that in the west, much of the driving force behind holistic watershed management efforts would be related to the mystique of WILDERNESS. In areas so full of public lands, this is hardly a daring working hypothesis. And indeed, an interest in preserving or restoring the characteristics of "natural" areas seems pertinent to much of the information shared through WMC meetings and publications. In the east, the impression is that with all the press of humanity and land development, the leit motif is the creation or protection of OPEN SPACE.

Clearly, the contrast between wilderness and open space is an over simplification. Bob Marshall's earliest wilderness experiences were in the Adirondacks; and open space in the design of pedestrian pockets around Sacramento is as prized as the plans to restore the urban landscape of Providence, Rhode Island. This over-simplified contrast has never been entirely on the mark, and in recent years its edge has undoubtedly become even less well-honed.

Still, I think the efforts to protect wilderness and open space are central to much of the environmental movement over at least the last 30 years. At one time, the concepts did have a sharper spatial dichotomy; more recently, virtually any region in the country can witness watershed management initiatives with both elements.

Perhaps more important than the blurring of spatial dichotomies, the last decade or so has seen a proliferation of efforts to anchor the measures of watershed success on biological foundations. With a biocentric focus, the contrast between wilderness and open space can even seem a bit artificial. Wilderness was ultimately an aesthetic experience; as is the experience of place enjoyed in open spaces like New York's Central Park. Excessive emphasis in the past on the grandeur, or prettiness, of a landscape as the bottom line has given us wilderness areas of rocks and ice and pleasing open spaces that fail any sensible tests of ecological balance, resilience, or self-sustainability.

I am glad to see that while the Watershed Management Council preserves certain overtones of my anticipated contrasts in east versus west, the underlying focus on landscape ecology touches on themes readily transferable throughout the United States.