Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Conclusion
The success of the ecosystem approach in managing Arcata's public forests depends
on the community's interest and involvement as well as a degree of ecological aware-
ness and understanding by the citizenry and elected officials. For the past thirty years,
Arcata has been fortunate in that its citizens and elected officials have had a high level
of ecological knowledge and environmental ethics. Moreover, in Arcata and the
Humboldt Bay watershed, enough of the ecological parts remain, and the connec-
tions to the larger forested landscape are still there (although the window of opportu-
nity is closing) to allow for serious conservation efforts and complementary restoration
work to move forward. It is important to stress humility in our restoration efforts, as our
knowledge base remains very low compared to what we do not know. Still, we must re-
member that the state of the art of ecological forestry in 1980, when Arcata began in
earnest to develop a sustainable forestry model, has changed considerably and will
continue to evolve.
Success will be defined by assisting the recovery of the forest structure, composi-
tion, and ecological processes to more closely approximate reference conditions. An-
other measure of success will be when the ecological integrity of the forest is such that
future interventions are not necessary. Surrogate old-growth species, such as the
northern spotted owl, Pacific fisher, northern flying squirrel, and red tree vole, are ex-
amples of indicators used in Arcata to demonstrate a positive trajectory. Even if not
fully successful from an ecological perspective, the process of attempting to reverse
past environmental impacts will have a lasting and profound impact on the people
who choose to be involved and make the effort. The act of removing invasive plants,
repairing a trail, planting a tree, or monitoring improving water quality in a creek al-
lows for hope and an optimistic vision of the future to flourish.
References
Belous, B. 1984. “Restoration among the Redwoods.”
Restoration & Management Notes
2 (2):
57-65.
Egan, D., and E. A. Howell, eds. 2001.
The Historical Ecology Handbook: A Restorationist's
Guide to Reference Ecosystems
. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Franklin, J. F., D. R. Berg, D. A. Thornburgh, and J. C. Tappeiner. 1997. “Alternative Silvicul-
tural Approaches to Timber Harvesting: Variable Retention Harvest Systems.” In
Creating
a Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management
, edited by K. A.
Kohm and J. F. Franklin, 111-39. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gann, G. D., and D. Lamb, eds. 2006.
Ecological Restoration: A Means of Conserving Biodi-
versity and Sustaining Livelihoods (version 1.1)
. Tucson, Arizona, and Gland, Switzerland:
Society for Ecological Restoration International.
Jameson, M., E. Reuter, and T. Robards. 2005. “Growth of Redwood and Douglas-Fir Leave
Trees Using Variable Retention.”
California Forestry Note No. 119
. Sacramento, CA: Cali-
fornia Department of Forestry & Fire Protection.
Keith, S. L. 1984. “Redwood Creek Estuary.”
Restoration & Management Notes
2 (2): 66-67.
Mitchell, S. J., and W. J. Beese. 2002. “The Retention System: Reconciling Variable Retention
with the Principles of Silvicultural Systems.”
The Forestry Chronicle
78 (3): 397-403.
