What is restoration forestry – perspectives from a 30x30 JDSF Tour

Tour attendees walk through an old tractor road of an experimental plot in JDSF. Photo credit: Melodie Meyer

Last Wednesday EPIC took a tour of Jackson Demonstration State Forest (JDSF) and Miller Family Farm to learn about different management techniques in restoration forestry and how restoration forestry may count as “conserved” under the State’s policies to conserve 30% of California’s lands and waters by 2030. The tour covered two restoration forestry projects on JDSF, which included timber harvests, a ribbon cutting for the first carbon flux tower to be located in a redwood forest, and a visit to the privately owned Miller Family Farm.

Whether or not certain types of restoration forestry count towards 30x30 is something that is often unclear to landowners hoping to help the state achieve its conservation goals. The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) is tasked with overseeing the 30x30 progress and providing assistance to various types of landowners to ensure that their lands can truly be categorized as conservation under this effort. But when developing the mapping and systemization for tracking 30x30 progress, CNRA decided to use the USGS codes from its ongoing Gap Analysis Project (GAP). Under these codes, “logging” is referenced as a potential activity that disqualifies lands from being considered “conserved” under 30x30; however, “logging” is also not defined by the USGS or CNRA. This means that there is no straightforward way to differentiate clear-cutting from thinning in determining which GAP code should be assigned to land.

The GAP guidance documents suggest that logging is assumed to be a management type that suppresses natural disturbance and degrades existing natural communities, thus forcing landowners to overcome this presumption by demonstrating that their management allows or mimics natural disturbances and maintains a primarily natural state. CNRA may be looking for ways to streamline the process of demonstrating this level of management, though no official proposals to changes in the policy have been made so far.

JDSF is classified as GAP 3 and therefore does not count toward 30x30, since by law the majority of the forest is managed primarily for commercial maximum sustained yield logging.  However, Cal Fire maintained throughout the tour that they do complete a number of restoration forestry projects—primarily within forest allocations such as Old Growth Reserves, Late Seral Development Area, and Older Forest Development Zone—in order to demonstrate how small landowners may be able to achieve conservation goals while profiting from timber harvest sales. EPIC has made the case a number of times that JDSF could count towards 30x30 if certain strides are taken to change the management strategy of the forest. This would take—among other things—a legislative change to the state forests act that would remove the mandate to conduct maximum sustained yield commercial logging on state forests, potentially a legally binding agreement to conserve the forest in perpetuity, and funding to supplement any loss of revenue from commercial logging.

This all begs the question of what restoration forestry is and how it should be defined---and by whom?

Much of the conversation on the tour focused on the economics of restoration forestry. It turns out there is a sweet spot for the size of trees when selling them to mills. Typically, to produce merchantable wood for buildings and fences, logs must be at least 10 inches in diameter. But trees over 35 inches in diameter start to pose logistical issues that cost loggers money. Very few mills within Northern California will be able to process logs over 30 inches in diameter due to most processing facilities only being prepared for a specific size range of log diameter, and the need not to overwhelm downstream production centers. Additionally, it is often cost-prohibitive to ship large trees due to their weight and size, increasing fuel and labor costs. Thus, according to landowner and logger Craig Blencowe, many timber harvesters aim to grow trees for harvest up to 35 inches in diameter – and no larger. Another reason for this target is that trees at this size develop 60-80% valuable heartwood—as opposed to sapwood—which can be used as building material. Depending on who you ask, the market for redwood is not doing well right now due to decreased construction and increasingly competitive wood alternatives. These variables provide the interesting outcome of allowing larger, older trees to be spared the chopping block, while allowing loggers to pick off smaller trees that may be overcrowded

due to past even-aged management practices.

Forester Craig Blencowe explains log size logistics at the Miller Family Farm in Mendocino County, CA. Photo credit: Melodie Meyer

This raised another thought-provoking economic question: what is a timberland owner, who has been managing for restoration or conservation, supposed to do with large, old trees on their property? Once trees reach a certain size and the forest develops complex wildlife habitats or old-growth characteristics, legal protections may restrict harvest. As one forester on the tour put it, ‘It feels like we are being punished for good behavior.’ Could this dynamic actually incentivize cutting down large, old trees simply because they have grown too big?

This circles back to the earlier question: what is restoration forestry, and what is its ultimate purpose? From the perspective of timberland owners—or in the case of JDSF, the state of California—it is assumed these lands will remain productive indefinitely, at least as long as there is a timber market. Within that framework, ‘restoration’ often means bringing the forest to a condition where it can continue producing harvestable trees on fairly regular intervals, typically 10–30 inches in diameter, at volumes sufficient to generate profit, while also maintaining some scattered large trees and a degree of visible biodiversity and recreational value. For these types of loggers and landowners, there is a distinction between maximum sustained yield and sustained yield: the former prioritizes commercial profit with little regard for other values, while the latter deliberately forgoes some profit to cultivate aesthetics, recreation, wildlife habitat, and similar benefits. This raises key questions: what should be done with the large trees that eventually develop into prime habitat, and how healthy can a forest truly be under the continual disturbance of logging?

From another end of the spectrum, some environmental advocates might argue that restoration means returning the forest to an earlier state—one characterized by larger trees, more native plants, cleaner water, the reintroduction of cultural fire, and little to no logging. In this view, logging is minimal to nonexistent, and the long-term goal is for ecological processes, guided by tribal and local indigenous peoples stewardship and adapted to the realities of climate change, to sustain the forest without the need for constant harvest plans or industrial interventions. This perspective, EPIC’s perspective, offers a guiding vision for how forests could be managed collaboratively with tribes and local indigenous peoples in the future. Achieving such a vision would not happen overnight; it would require decades, if not centuries, of dedicated effort, much of it carried out by the same workforce currently responsible for managing forests today.

The tour made clear that restoration forestry remains a contested concept, with definitions shaped by economic interests, legal constraints, ecological science, and cultural values. For 30x30 to succeed, the state must decide whether restoration forestry will simply mean managing forests to produce timber at lower intensities or whether it will mean truly restoring ecological integrity and resilience in partnership with tribes and local indigenous peoples. Without clarity, landowners and agencies alike will be left guessing how their efforts fit into the state’s conservation framework. The question of what restoration forestry is — and what it is for — is not just academic. It is central to how California will meet its conservation commitments, how our forests will look a century from now, and whose values those forests will ultimately serve.