Notes on a Meeting of the Landscape Committee of the Jackson Advisory Group, February 4, 2009

Introduction

This is the second in a related series of documents on applying the concept of “Natural Forestry” at Jackson State Forest. The concept is introduced and defined in Part 1. The key idea behind Natural Forestry is simultaneously managing redwood forests for restoration toward old growth and continued timber harvesting.

The term Natural Forestry refers to emulating natural forest processes in  management methods. Two aspects of natural processes in redwood forests are 1) trees grow to be many hundreds, even thousands of years old, and 2) over time, the number of trees in an area decline while the sizes of the remaining trees increase. Thus, Natural Forestry would selectively harvest smaller trees (“thin from below”) repeatedly, leading over time to increasingly older and larger trees, eventually to old growth conditions.

Part 1 reported on initial conversations among three experts who generally gave enthusiastic support to exploring the concept of Natural Forestry.

The present document contains notes compiled by Vince Taylor  on a meeting of the Landscape Committee of the Jackson Advisory Group. This meeting followed the initial conversations reported in Part 1. The term Natural Forestry originated in this meeting,  as participants discussed the applying the principles of Natural Forestry to a large majority of Jackson Forest.  The notes were not intended as a comprehensive record of the meeting, but aimed to capture the various viewpoints espoused by the participants.

Landscape Committee Meeting, February 4, 2009

Participants: Brad Valentine (Co-chair), Mike Jani (Co-chair), Kathy Bailey, Linda Perkins, Forest Tilley, Vince Taylor, Marc Jameson (JDSF Manager)

The following are my recollection of the points made at the meeting about the proposal, initially from Mike Jani at this meeting, but generally following the thrust of the points made in email correspondence circulated by Vince Taylor [contained in Part 1]. The correspondents were Steve Sillett, Mike Fay, and Ken Fisher. The major theme of the letters was that using “light touch” or “thin from below” silviculture could be continued to be used over hundreds of years, and that this was a preferred management strategy for multiple objectives, including timber production, habitat, and restoration of redwood forests to the old growth condition that is the natural state of redwood forests.

Mike Jani termed the application of this strategic approach to management, “Managing the forest to emulate natural forest processes,” or “Natural Forestry” for short.

The key elements of Natural Forestry are that silvicultural applications would be designed to continually grow stands to higher volumes and larger tree diameters, would allow some portion of trees to grow indefinitely larger, and timber harvesting would continue without stopping.

Linda had earlier reiterated the concept in the book “Ecoforestry,” of managing forests so that forests over time would attain their natural age. This concept is inherent in the strategy of Natural Forestry.

I suggested that the idea of “recovery” should be incorporated in the definition, because we are dealing with forests that are all very far from their “natural”, pre-logging state.

I offer the following possible definition:

Natural Forestry is the management of forests to produce timber while simultaneously fostering the forests’ return to their natural age and structural state.

Mike offered that the principles contained in Natural Forestry were principles of the Guild. Linwood nodded assent.

Mike would like to know the extent of natural variations in redwoods – how  much and how geographically distributed of different seral stages. He offered the opinion that “We all know how much young forest existed in the untouched redwood stands. Very little.”

Kathy expressed that the forests were now far from their natural state, but that there is a “natural recovery process” going on. We need to be careful not to interfere with that process in an undesirable way.

Linwood brought up the issue of the allocations of different seral classes in Table 4 of the Management Plan.

Mike replied that he had looked at this table, and taking the maximum latitude within the table, one could apply Natural Forestry to 80% of the land and still fit within the table. After this, 80% became a kind of “base case” for discussion.

Kathy noted that all of the preserves and areas highly restricted for management (e.g., Class I stream zones) would be in the 80%.

John Helms said he found the concept of Natural Forestry very appealing, but was uncertain how much of the forest should be managed this way.

Vince said that his idea was that Natural Forestry should be the “default” landscape designation. Then, uses that were inconsistent with NF would be identified and justified, and sufficient geography to provide for these would be removed from the NF designation. Uses that Vince identified were:

• ·Reserves in which no management would take place
• ·Areas devoted to demonstration and research on management methods that were not compatible with NF, e.g., even-age management

As people expressed various concerns, there emerged a clear consensus that we need to do some modeling and explorations of the implications of natural forestry for:

1. Volume of timber production over time. Can it continue at a constant to increasing rate perpetually, or is volume bound to fall off?

2. How will the economics (costs) of timber production be affected relative to standard management practices?

[Related to the second item, after the meeting Linwood raised the issue of trees getting so large that getting them out of the forest with modern techniques and equipment could become impractical. Further, current mills could not handle logs of the size that would become “normal” harvest in a hundred or so years.

Linwood’s questions raised the question of whether their should be some limit on tree size in actively managed portions of the forest, so all trees reaching this limit would be cut. Vince wasn’t happy with this idea, because it would negate the concept of actively managing forest stands all the way back to natural old growth. Exploring these issues and questions would appropriately occur under Question 2, above.]

There was a good discussion of public and private rates of return and their influence on “economical” timber management, but it is too complex to summarize. Vince argued that if you could show that Jackson Forest could provide a constant to growing volume of timber production over time, that would satisfy the economic requirements for a publicly owned forest.

Vince suggested a second principle, which after discussion, evolved into two additional principles to accompany Natural Forestry:

1. The volume of timber harvested from Natural-Forestry managed areas should be non-declining over time, measured for the forest as a whole.

2. The inventory volume of Natural-Forestry managed areas should be non-declining over time, within each watershed so managed.

Sentiment was expressed for another management principle, not related to landscape allocation, but generally agreed to be valuable:

• There should be an even annual flow of logs, subject to variation because of market conditions.

The group began a discussion of principles to apply in establishing allocations that would subtract or be outside of Natural Forestry areas. This discussion was interrupted before the group could come to any general agreement, but the following thoughts were put out:

• Demonstrations inconsistent with Natural Forestry would be within designated R&D areas, such as those specified in the Management Plan, but perhaps with boundaries adjusted.
• Research could occur anywhere on the forest, but when inconsistent with Natural Forestry would be done on the smallest scale consistent with scientific validity.
• Dan Porter’s Hexagon methodology could help in identifying areas for preserves.
• Principles are needed for specifying location and amounts of preserves.
• Allocation of areas for younger trees would be determined by needs of the to TBD demonstration and research program.

What these linear notes don’t capture was the sense some of us felt that using Natural Forestry (even though still a somewhat amorphous concept) as a default management strategy on most of the forest was a breakthrough. There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered and concerns addressed, but Natural Forestry seems like a strategy that could be defined in such a way that it could bring the JAG to consensus on its most difficult charge.

If we do reach consensus on a management approach that will put the forest on a steady path toward old growth while continuing harvests at levels generally considered acceptable, Jackson Forest will become a beacon of hope for forestry around the world. It will truly become a world class forest.

Mike Jani, co-chair of the Landscape Committee of the JAG coined the term and gave a definition for Natural Forestry.  “Natural Forestry is managing the forest to emulate natural forest processes.” A key aspect of the natural processes of redwood forests is that the trees grow to 500 years and upwards.

The key elements of Natural Forestry are that harvest operations would be designed to continually grow stands to higher volumes and larger tree diameters, would allow some portion of trees to grow indefinitely larger, and timber harvesting would continue without end. As the stands grew over hundreds of years, they would more and more resemble natural old growth stands.

Natural Forestry, if it could be demonstrated to be economically and practically feasible, would remove the necessity to choose between managing the public forest to maximize its ecological value or managing it to provide revenues and desired timber jobs. Natural Forestry would be the preferred management strategy for multiple objectives, including timber production, habitat, and restoration of redwood forests to the old growth condition that is the natural state of redwood forests.

Ecologically, Natural Forestry management is a strong contender for the best strategy. As Ken Fisher has commented, it “… does maximize cubic volume of wood over time, carbon sequestration, tree size, non-model conforming tree qualities like large irregular upper branching, reiteration, and old bark qualities.” These are powerful pluses.

Major questions need to be answered about the economics and mechanics of harvesting trees in stands that continually grow older. The JAG will be addressing these in the coming months.

There is also a legitimate fear of those interested in timber production that at the point in time where the majority of trees in the stands are hundreds of years old and five and more feet across, the public will cry out against cutting any of the trees and harvesting will come to a halt.

Natural Forestry needs much more thought, discourse, and investigation, but the concept is exciting.

See related posts at Jackson Forum under the heading “Natural Forestry.”

Please comment below on the concept. 
__________________

Published as one of a series of columns in the Mendocino Beacon and Fort Bragg Advocate News under the heading “Jackson Forest Wanderings”, February 19, 2009.

The Jackson Advisory Group (JAG) was appointed by the Director of Cal Fire and the Board of Forestry and given as its primary task the development of a long-term management plan for Jackson State Forest.

The JAG began meeting in mid-2008. Ever since it has been grappling with the question of how much of the forest ought to be managed for restoration to old growth and how much ought to be devoted to commercial timber production. As one can imagine, different interests have different ideas of how to answer this question. 

A possible solution to this apparently divisive question has now arisen in the  form of another question: Might it be possible to simultaneously manage for restoration to old growth and ongoing timber production? If the answer is “Yes,” the conflict disappears.

The term that arose later and has been adopted to describe this management method is “Natural Forestry.” The term was initially coined and defined by Mike Jani, as “managing the forest to emulate natural forest processes.” A key aspect of the natural processes of redwood forests is that the trees grow to 500 years and upwards.

The key elements of Natural Forestry are that harvest operations would be designed to continually grow stands to higher volumes and larger tree diameters, would allow some portion of trees to grow indefinitely larger, and timber harvesting would continue without end. As the stands grew over hundreds of years, they would more and more resemble natural old growth stands.

A lively discussion has arisen about the potentials and obstacles to applying Natural Forestry as a dominant management technique at Jackson Forest and possibly other public lands and possibly even on some private lands.

The Origins of the Conversation on Natural Forestry

The concept of what has come to be called Natural Forestry originated in discussions within the JAG on landscape allocations to various long-term goals, e.g. old growth (late sera) restoration.

One key contributor to the concept was the work the JAG did last year to develop recommendation on how a timber harvest could be designed to promote “late seral” (the technical term for “old-growth” development. Its recommendations were adopted for application in two legacy THPs, Brandon Gulch and Camp Three.

Upon looking at the proposed prescription, I thought that it didn’t look all that much different than the approach that would be used to grow stands to “older forest”, one of the major categories of land use proposed in the Jackson Forest management plan. “Older forest” designation differed from “late seral” designation in that all trees reaching a certain age, perhaps 120 years, would be harvested; thus old growth conditions would never be achieved.

When I asked the professional foresters at a meeting whether there would be much difference between the harvest prescriptions for restoration to old growth or to old forest, the unanimous opinion was, “Not much difference.” Good. This means we could start now to manage both categories (late seral and old forest) on a path to restoration for old growth. Sometime in the future decisionmakers could decide whether to continue restoration or begin harvesting the old trees.

The next contributor to the concept was an article by Alan Wittbecker in Ecoforestry (New Society Publishers, 1997) in which he argued that a key element of forest management attuned to ecosystem health was managing for tree lifetimes natural for the type of forest being managed:

Ecoforestry should optimize cutting instead of maximizing it, harvest a percentage of the natural interest instead of the ecological capital, on the very long turn-around of 250-750 years instead of 10 to 100-year rotations, and allow self-ordered renewal of the forest …

For redwood forests, this concept implies growing trees in the forest to 500 and more years of age. At a JAG meeting, I raised the idea of growing and harvesting the forest with the goal of continuing on indefinitely into the future; so that all of the forest, unless set aside for other purposes, would return to old growth. Of course, this is a radically different approach than currently practiced with redwoods, and no one at the meeting could quite imagine this as a possibility.

Such a strategy, if it could be shown to be feasible, would offer a dominant solution for the overarching management of Jackson State Forest. It would offer the best of worlds for all interests: The forest returning toward original, natural conditions; continued, stable and perhaps growing timber harvests; and increasing amounts of scarce old-growth habitat and ecology.

First Conversations

Because Natural Forestry, if feasible, would be such a marvelous solution to the tension between restoration and timber production, I starting looking around for help on developing some simple modeling that would create for people more of a sense of reality about long-duration redwood management.

On January 28, 2009 I wrote to Steve Sillett, professor at Humboldt State, soliciting his help in building and making projections for long periods of time (hundreds of years). Professor  Sillett holds the Kenneth L. Fisher Chair in Redwood Forest Ecology at Humboldt State University. He is recognized as a foremost expert on redwood trees, most popularly known for exploring the ecology of the high canopy of redwood trees.

The request to Dr. Sillett evoked an extremely provocative and encouraging response from two colleagues who Dr. Sillett copied on his reply to me:

· Ken Fisher is an investment manager with a long background in redwoods spanning academic study, forest management, and lumbering history and is considered one of the leading experts in the history of redwood lumbering south of San Francisco. He is a friend of Dr. Sillett’s and endowed the chair Dr. Sillett occupies at Humboldt State University from which Ken graduated. Among other things Ken has built the world’s largest non-institutionally owned forest history library with particular specialty in redwood.

· Mike Fay, Ph.D., has recently completed a walking tour of the entire redwood region, visiting forests and talking to forest practitioners who have been successfully using a “thin from below” strategy that could serve as a model for developing a working old-growth forest. He did so for a project entitled The Redwood Transect, sponsored by the National Geographic Society, which will be published in Nation Geographic Magazine in October 2009, the first major National Geographic article on the redwood region since the 1960s.

As you will see reading these responses, Mr. Fisher and Dr.. Fay both believe that it is not only feasible but highly desirable to manage simultaneously for timber production and return to old growth forest ecology.

Below I’ve reproduced the emails in the chain, edited and with added emphases in few instances. These emails are only the beginning of a conversation that has spread more widely and grown in interest and information. I will publish the later correspondence in future posts under the same general heading, “Natural Forestry at Jackson Forest — Part …”

Correspondence

Vince Taylor, January 28, 2009 to Steve Sillett prof.sillett@gmail.com

Subject: Long Duration Redwood Growth

Dear Steve,
I am working with the Jackson Advisory Group and would like to create some sense of reality around the concept of growing Jackson Forest stands to 200-500+ years of age, while continuing some timber harvesting. I’d like to be able to demonstrate that such a concept would allow the bulk of Jackson Forest to return to old growth ecology, while meeting revenue needs for management of the forest.
Can you suggest a name of someone who could help to create a simple, parameterized model that could create reasonable projections of stand growth, volume, and characteristics for hundreds of years?
I am thinking of a very simplified model. At the least, though, we would need to have some idea of board-foot volume growth for a redwood stand over hundreds of years. Do you know of any source of data for this, or how one could make some plausible assumptions?
I recall your saying, I think to Dan Porter, that redwood trees don’t become senile but keep growing. Of course percentage growth rates decline over time, but is it plausible that absolute volume growth continues to increase or remains at a high level for hundreds of years?
Any names or references that you give me will be greatly appreciated.
Best,
Vince
_____________________________________

Steve Sillett, January 28, 2009 to Vince Taylor, copies to Mike Fay <mfay@ngs.org> and Ken Fisher <ken@fi.com>
Re: Long Duration Redwood Growth

Vince,
Yes.
I have such information and am willing to help.  Another person who can help is Mike Fay.  Have you contacted him?  If not, he’s cc’ed to this message.  Another person who knows a lot about this issue is Ken Fisher (also cc’ed), who advises management of some magnificent second-growth near San Mateo, which includes some timber harvest.
The best data on redwood growth come from Humboldt Redwoods, so there will be some scaling issues to get reasonable growth rates for Jackson Forest.  This effort would be greatly facilitated by data on tree growth from Jackson Forest.  Are there any long-term data or dendrochronological records from there?
We should talk further in the near future, as, like you, I see great potential to restore large trees to forested landscapes via active management.
Steve

__________________________________________

Ken Fisher, January 29, 2009 to Vince Taylor, with copies to Steve Sillett and Mike Fay
Re: Long Duration Redwood Growth

Vince,

If I can help you on this in some way let me know.  The silviculture issues associated with accelerating ancient redwood forest qualities are pretty straightforward.  The cultural issues aren’t.  The silviculture, which derives as a variation from the traditional concept of , “cutting from below” isn’t impossible to model and can, in fact, be demonstrated for efficacy in even a very small stand over a very short time period like three years.  It’s just a matter of demonstrating that your actions consistently maximize cubic wood volume per plot based on tree height and ring width which isn’t hard to do via increment boring based metrics before and after.

The key is to remain ever focused on what is necessary to maximize the approach toward ancient qualities of tree–remembering and accepting as faith, which few do, that all other qualities of an ancient forest derive from the trees as a substrate for the ecosystem. That is very central but very hard for almost everyone today to accept.

In the process of taking actions to accelerate ancient tree qualities a byproduct is logs that must be cut and as cull-based byproduct can be and logically should be sold, generating revenue.  To not sell would be wasteful. The process does not maximize revenue, not even closely, but does generate revenue and confuses the public and many interested parties because they assume log extraction is based on seeking revenue. 

The process does maximize cubic volume of wood over time, carbon sequestration, tree size, non-model conforming tree qualities like large irregular upper branching, reiteration, and old bark qualities.  But everything has trade-offs.  Every entry has short-term negative effect on some ecological factors. For example, each entry involved will in the short-term impede the ability of population communities to maximize which in today’s environment generates a vocal opposition constituency. It is critical to accept that long term population communities will benefit from a better, older, more ancient forest.  Few do.

There are many with myriad varied objections including those who don’t understand or accept many of the things that recent science has demonstrated about large and old redwoods—both as trees and forests, much of which derive directly from Steve Sillett’s research.  Again, the issues of accelerating ancient qualities aren’t about silviculture which is agnostic to the desired goals of the forest owner by definition.  The issues are cultural.  In my mind doing this is very hard to implement on public land where the social dogma is for benign neglect of forests everywhere.   

I’m personally opposed to the benign neglect regime and would welcome any public land commitment to accelerating ancient forest qualities so if I can help, and you have a real desire to so do, let me know. 

Ken Fisher
________________________________ 

Mike Fay, January 30, 2009 to Steve Sillett, Ken Fisher, Vince Taylor
Re: Long Duration Redwood Growth

Hi,

I like what Ken has written here and agree with the fundamentals.  I am very happy to see that Ken also believes that  “The process does maximize cubic volume of wood over time, carbon sequestration, tree size, non-model conforming tree qualities like large irregular upper branching, reiteration, and old bark qualities.”  

I believe that, like Ken put very well, the trees (as well as soils) are the substrate for the ecosystem.  Climate can be influenced by the forest, and visa versa, another important component.  What Steve has discovered is that the notion of CMAI [Cumulating Mean Annual Increment, the point at which lifetime average volume of growth is maximized] is applicable to old growth redwoods and from my understanding in Bull Creek Flat it has not been reached yet.  This flies in the face of traditional beliefs amongst professionals. 

What we experienced along the transect was a continuum of people who believed that not a single tree should ever be cut, harmed or violated by humans, including through global warming, to those who would put the entire redwood range on a 38 year clear cut rotation with no regulation and no protections for watersheds or other values.  But we did find a significant number of very dedicated foresters who have been practicing a variation of the silviculture that Ken speaks about in virtually every county of the redwood range.  They have practiced and quantified it for a number of decades now and in my opinion can do exactly what Ken says.  The result is that the substrate is enhanced and thus the ecosystem is enhanced.  Of course there are a large number of discussions through the range on the nuances of this silviculture, but when I walk through Redtree Properties in Santa Cruz, compared to clearcuts, there is a world of difference there.  For me what is exciting is therein is a possibility for industrial scale use of these practices, for instance in the case of MRC-HRC.  Obviously their practices are on an industrial scale, but their approach is toward building inventory, bigger trees, more heartwood, and to have higher productivity.  I would say that they could be helped in this mission.

This is a long discussion.   First, I would love to see a group of professionals get together sometime in the summer where we could really address the long-standing issue of “show-me” with the data.  I believe that there is enough accumulated data that we could convincingly show that this thinning from below is a viable method, not just for improving the trajectory of old growth characteristics in protected areas, but as a viable and important contribution to forest management on private lands that provides an increasing annual production stream from the forest for a very long time.  Some would say that if you go back to the basic tenets of the forest practices act this is required in California.

Jackson has a varied history.  Today it is a State Forest and these State Forests do have the obligation take into account values other than timber production.  What is real interesting to me is that it might just be that Jackson could not only protect every other value, but also do it producing a lot of wood.  Certainly in Jackson we saw some forests that sorely need thinning where redwoods were way overplanted.  I believe that the State Forests in the redwoods (both Jackson and Soquel) should continue the tradition of being places that demonstrate real innovation. From what I saw in Soquel the THP in development there could really be done in a way that gets at the question you are posing Vince.

So why don’t we try to get the forestry community together in the summer and get to the bottom of if we have the data to be able to model this out.  The bottom line for me is that this isn’t just about making old growth faster in parks, it is about the basics of how forest is managed by humans.  I strongly believe that forest practices worldwide need to dramatically shift in the next two decades from a long history of liquidation to one of building forest inventory.  I believe that there are folks like Steve Staub who, if he were Sec. of Ag., would make that kind of change happen that comes from a good understanding of forest ecology and the need for wood production.   We can convince park people to do it and we may even be able to convince more large industrials in the redwood range to give it a try. 

I look forward to continued discussion.

Mike

he late seral harvest plan differs greatly from the harvest plan previously marked for Brandon Gulch. The former plan was intended to be a high-volume commercial harvest that favored larger trees and included small clearcuts throughout much of the harvest area in order to encourage the growth of a new generation of trees. The new plan keeps all of the larger trees and aims to keep the natural diversity of conditions found in the 90 year-old undisturbed stands of redwood and Douglas Fir in Brandon Gulch.

On the visit, Marc Jameson, Manager of Jackson Demonstration State Forest, explained the way in which the new mark was made. [The blue lines on trees are from the prior mark. These marked trees were scheduled for harvest. In the new harvest, only the trees with yellow dots will be harvested.] The heavy breathing of the camera person (me) is because I had to hurry up the slope to catch up after lagging behind to take photos on the way up.

You will notice that not many yellow dots are visible in the video. As we walked through the plan area, Mike Anderson of Anderson Logging, Fort Bragg, asked Marc how the volume of timber to be cut in the new mark compared to the original cut. Marc said that the prior volume would have been 40-50% of the stand. The goal for the new mark is no more than 30% of volume (actually “basal area”, which is reasonably related to volume). Thus, the relative volume in the new mark would be 60-75% of the prior volume.

As we continued our walk and looked at the currently marked trees compared to the prior ones, Mike Anderson offered that it looked like the cut would be down by at least 50%, if not more. Marc then said that they were marking conservatively, aiming at 25% in order to allow for trees that weren’t marked but that would be cut as part of the logging operation in order to remove the trees (primarily for cable corridors).

My own impression of the new mark was very favorable. When I saw the aftermath of a brief but intense logging that occurred in 2004 (in 5 days between court ordered prohibitions on logging in Jackson Forest), I was horrified. This time I was very happy to be able to feel that this was a harvest that would not destroy the forest values that have accumulated during 100 years of undisturbed growth.

The largest trees will all be left. Most of the harvest will remove only a minority of the redwoods growing in rings around the stumps of the original old growth trees. Trees in between the clumps will be left unless they compete seriously for light with adjacent large redwoods. The hardwoods (primarily tan oak) will be left. Although some canopy will be removed, the projections are that it will close up within 10 years, shading out new trees and brush that sprouts in the temporary openings. Within 20 years, the stands should have returned to much the same state as before the harvest, while allowing the larger trees more space to grow into still bigger trees.

I am hopeful that the approach taken at Brandon Gulch will be able to serve as a model for management of all of the old undisturbed second-growth stands that are not set aside as unmanaged preserves. This will be one of the central issues to be considered by the JAG in developing a long-term landscape plan.

One issue remained unresolved – what was to happen with the two timber harvest plans (THPs) filed in 2000, for Brandon Gulch and Camp 3. These plans were subsequently halted by the legal actions of the Campaign. The state contended that the THPs were still valid, although they were long past the 5-year expiration limit in the statutes. With the approval of the management plan, these plans could go forward.

The Campaign was unalterably opposed to allowing the plans to go forward. The THPs were located within the central recreation area of the forest, where numerous campgrounds and recreation trails are located. The stands of forest are exceptional. They were last logged one-hundred years ago, and in the century since, the redwoods and firs have completely restored a high canopy, shading out the brush and creating the play of light and shadow that make redwood forests seem like ancient cathedrals. Such stands on public land are rare to the vanishing point.

Although agreeing with the new management plan, the Campaign pressed the Board of Forestry and Cal Fire to renegotiate or terminate the contracts. The Board and the Campaign agreed to extend the time for filing a legal challenge to the management plan and environmental report while the parties to the THP contracts attempted to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. The threat of legal action, which all parties wanted to avoid, created strong pressure for reaching agreement.

Finally, after numerous meetings among the parties (Cal Fire, the Campaign, and the THP contract holders), the general outlines of a settlement emerged. A key point for the Campaign was to shift the purpose of the harvests from revenue generation to restoration toward old-growth conditions (technically called “late-seral” conditions). Restoration of the forest has been a key element in the platform of the Campaign. A key element for the contractors was an agreement by Cal Fire to provide substitute timber from other harvest plans to make up for the reduction in harvests in Brandon Gulch and Camp 3 that would occur because of the shift toward restoration.

For me personally, one of the most wonderful parts of the agreement was the removal of about 150 acres within Camp 3 from the harvest plan, to be set aside as a “control” (Cal Fire’s view) or, in my view, as a preserve. This preserve is right next to the central gathering point for campers and recreationists. A recreation trail – yet to be built – will allow hikers to explore through this beautiful forest stand, knowing it will be allowed to continue to heal and grow, undisturbed by logging.

In early June, the last of the necessary signatures was affixed to the settlement agreement. In addition to agreeing to the changes in the timber harvest contracts, the parties agreed to forgo any rights to file legal challenges to the management plan or the timber harvest plans. The settlement agreement, thus, wrote the final chapter of the legal saga that began in 2000.

Still to come, though, are the chapters of the new volume being written by the independent Jackson Advisory Group. This group has until 2011 to design a long-term landscape and management plan for the forest that will provide an appropriate balance among the needs for wildlife habitat, ecological health, recreation, research and education, and revenue to support operations of Jackson Forest. It will be an interesting story. Stay tuned.

Vince Taylor
August, 2008