ffVUl_NG.4902-23.23AVAILABLE

O F'ORE°°*°°.°'STRYWilliam H. Banzhaf, Publisher, banzhaffi@safnet.org Id.*wa,--t41f_t.r.]wa4t,,.ii_lmt,J.x.JoA.t**Rebecca N. Staebler, Editor-in-Chief, staebler@safner.org

Frail Pflieger, Managing Editor, pffiegef@safn..... g 4 Native Knowledge for Native EcosystemsSally Atwater, Editorial Consultant Robin Wall KimmererSteven J. Wilent, Contributing Editor, swilent@compuserve.com

M..... Gately, Art Director, gatelym@safnet.org What can indigenous knowledge systems offer for the evolutionNinaC._..... ProductionManager,g...... _s_S...... g of the philosophy and practice of ecological restoration? Tradi-William V. Brumby, Advertising Manager, brumbyb@safnet.org

CindyJ. Drabick, Classified Advertising, drabickc@safnet.org tional knowledge is a potential source for emerging models ofChristina Johnson, Publications Assistant, johnsonc@safuet.org ecosystem management.

Editorial Board

Kathleen Bergen, geospatial technologies. Dale Blahna, recreation. John

Bliss, socialsciences.John Bryant, fire. Andrew Egan, utilization &engineering. Jo Ellen Force,policy. Thomas E Geary, international. I.t, "I a.o_'ltI i-I'-l-i(.lil_,iqI', .].I Ii_,I(_,I*I*V... , I_*_;_1 I*I

Christine Jauhola, wildlife management. Stephen B. Jones, education &

...... ication. Donald J. Leopold, forest ecology. T. Evan Nebeker, 10 Restoring Bottomland Hardwood Ecosystems in theentomology&pathology. Kevin L. O'Hara, silviculture. Robert M. Ricard,

urban. Francis A. Roesch......... t. Jay Sulli.... conomics. Lower Mississippi Mluvial Valey

Shepard Zedaker, rag..... ti ..... logy&fores,oi_ John A. Stanturf, Emile S. Gardiner, Paul B. Hamel, Margaret S.Allpap..... dergobli,dp.... *iew. Devall, Theodor D. Leininger, and Melvin E. WarrenJr.Opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect the policy of the

Society of American Forest.... Because of concerns for wildlife habitat and water quality protec-Correspondence tion, the valley is now the site of the most extensive forest restora-

Address all letters to tbe editor to Journal of ForestryEdit ........ il tion effort in the United States.journal@safnet.org. Address correspondence relating to manuscripts tothe Managing Editor. Manuscripts and illustrations will be handled with

: care, but the publisher cannot assume responsibility for their safety.

; Address all advertising queries to the Advertising Manager.Journal of Forestry

5400 Grosvenor Lane II°IIaIlit_II'l_'I_i']'II_d_*IIr(qIolIl_'laI'll_i_'_|'|"IN_(°lalolniII*-

Bethesda, MD 20814-219817 Forest Restoration in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine

(301)897-8720, fax (301)897-3690

ww_.s_et.org Dennis L. Lynch, William H. Romme, and M. Lisa Floyd

Permissionto reprint Even as the science of forest restoration evolves, managers must

:, Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for th...... permitted to make consider financial feasibility: Can restoration both achieve ecolog-fair useof the material in this journal, for example,copying anarticle for

use in teaching ........ h. To request permission to photocopy, contact ical objectives and pay for itself?.the APS Customer Service Department, Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; (978) 750-8400; fax(978)

750-4470; www.copyright.com. For republication or systematic or multi-

ple reproduction of copyrighted material (including figuresand article ex-cerpts), pemfission must be obtained from SAE with a feefor commercial

use to be determined. TheJournalgrants permission to quote from it if the

customary acknowledgment of the source accompanies the quote.i

Subscriptions

Subscripti .... t..... $65 for individuals in the US and Canada ($95 inforeign countries) and $120 for institutions in the US ($150 in foreigncountries); single issues are $7.50. Subscription price to members is in-cluded in annual dues.

!iTheJournal of Forestry(ISSN 0022-1201 ) (IPM # 1115308) is publishedmonthly by the Society of American Foresters, 5400 Grosvenor Lane,

Bethesda,MD 20814-2198. @2000 by the Society of American Foresters.

Periodicalspostage paid at Bethesda, MD, and at additional mailing offices.Printed in the USA.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to A. Ziadi, Journal of Forestry,5400

Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814-2198; e-mail: ziadia@safnet.org.

For a complete listing of upcoming journal topics and

past issue contents, visit www.safnet.org. Our mission is to advance forest science, technology, p

August 2000Volume 98

Number 8

page 10 page 17. page25

25 Restructuring the Forest: Goshawks and the Restorationof Southwestern Ponderosa Pine

James N. Long and Frederick W. Smith

A landscape-level mosaic of age and structural classes is in-tended to provide habitats and food chains for a broad spec-

trum of wildlife species, including goshawks and their prey. turesitivast to

32 Restoring Forest Ecosystems: The Human Dimension tion na-R. Bruce Hull and Paul H. Gobster ture ofour r

erlnLessons from the social sciences and humanities can help suc- restorecessfully plan and implement restoration projects, bottomland hardwood forests in the flood-

plains of the Mississippi River, and Lynchet al. focus on the economic implications offorest restoration in Colorado. Long andSmith present innovative silvicultural ap-proaches to restoring ponderosa pine whilemanaging for wildlifehabitat. Finally, Hull

Focus and Gobster address the human compo-nent as they explore how managers can ac-

Forest restoration in France • Biodiversity and wood production commodate social Concerns surrounding• Invasive alien plants • Software for TMDL calculations restoration.

About the cover: The Falls of Kaaterskill by ThomasCole. Courtesy of the Warner Collection of Gulf

States Paper Corporation. Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

1 Commentary

1 Letters

40 In Review

42 Forestry Reports

43 Classifieds, Employment

48 Perspective

ducation, and a conservation ethic to benefit society.

n the past two decades, ecological tion projects for several years with arestoration has moved from an ob- group of social scientists and humani-

s_ ,suc- J_scure and scientifically suspect ties scholars and have become con-

ceedsociallyaswellasecolo owdo craft to a widely practiced and re- vinced that knowledge of the humanwemaintainthevolunteerforceneededto spected profession with considerable dimensions is as critical for the success

implementandmaintainrestorationprojects? scientific knowledge and refined on- of a restoration as is the knowledge of

Scholarsare beginningto addresstheseques- the-ground practices. Concurrently, ecological science (Gobster and Hull

ti0nsandfindingthat humandimensionsare forest restoration has become a valued 2000). Here we offer a preliminary setskill of forestry professionals and a of suggestions for making restoration

keyto the successfulimplementationand popular goal for forest management, projects more responsive to importantmaintenanceof restorationprojects.We Politics and conflicting human values, social concerns. These suggestions ad-recommendmakingclearthe rangeofbene- however, continue to confound and dress three issues: making clear thefitsresultingfromrestoration,negotiating derail even some of the most well-in- range of benefits of restoration, nego-ecologicallysoundandsociallyacceptable tended efforts to restore forest ecosys- tiating ecologically sound and socially

alternatives,andcreatingvolunteerc0mmu- terns. Restoration projects exist within acceptable restoration alternatives, and

nitiesthat sustainprojectsoverthe 10ngrun. a social context, and they must there- creating communities to sustainfore produce environmental condi- restoration projects over the long term.tions that are not just ecologicallysound, but also economically feasible Above:Fieldtoursareusefulwaysto

By R. Bruce Hull and and socially acceptable, communicate the benefits of restora-Paul H. Gobster We have been examining restora- tion to the broader public.

32 Auvusr 2000

Communicating the Benefits cepts like biological diversity, ecological that sees a firm separation between peo-Restoration projects require exten- integrity, and ecosystem health to inte- pie and nature. From this extreme end

sire resources and political support. As grate these ethical concerns about na- of the human-nature dichotomy, thesuch, restoration competes not only ture into restoration efforts (Sagoff forest is seen as soulful, living, and dis-with other worthy environmental pro- 1988; Westra and Lemons 1995; Rap- tinct from humans, and is "best" whenjects, but also with programs more ob- port et al. 1998). Certainly, practicing left alone to take its own course. Thisviously linked to human health, educa- restoration is one way to demonstrate rationale often justifies policies that re-tion, and welfare, like hospitals, respect andvalue for the forest, move evidence of humans from theschools, and roads. The methods by But does restoration fully represent land and minimize active management.which a restoration site is selected and our ethical obligation to the nonhuman From the other end of the dichotomy,the project implemented should explic- world? Environmental philosopher Eric the forest is viewed as a stockpile ofitly consider the full range of benefits Katz (1992), for one, sees restoration as goods and services and is "best" whenof alternative projects. The choice of a largely human-centered endeavor that managed to provide sustainable flows ofwhere and what to restore will rarely be imposes human values on the destiny of economically valuable resources. Thisundisputed, but the debate can be nonhuman nature. Restoration, he says, rationale often justifies considerable do-more sophisticated if the consequences encourages people to believe they know mestication, if not complete develop-are clearly understood and the goals what is best for n_lture and have the ment, of a forest ecosystem. Negotia-specifically articulated, technology to repair whatever damage tions between these two camps over de-

Detail the many instrumental benefits they might cause. Such faith is mis- sired future conditions are quickly po-

of restoration. It can be c0nvincinglyar- placed, according to Katz, and pro- larized and paralyzed (Ingerson 1994;gued that human health and welfare motes an arrogance that can lead to fur- Senecah 1996) (see "Public Participa-are enhanced through restoration of ther environmental destruction. Man- tion Paralysis").damaged ecosystems. Human societies agers should be sensitive to these nega- Restoration provides an alternativedepend on functioning ecosystem ser- tive interpretations of restoration, vision of society's relationship with thevices that, it is estimated, are worth at Break the paralysis of the human- forest that may help us work aroundleast $33 trillion annually--several nature dichotomy. Katz's argument and this paralyzing dichotomy. A restora-times the global gross national product others like it stem from a worldview tion ethic opens up a broad middle(Costanza et al. 1998). Assessments ofthese utilitarian benefits can be found

in the pages of this journal and in theliterature of environmental mitigation,ecological economics, public health,and environmental risk assessment.

The choice among alternativerestoration projects could consider, forexample, the extent to which productiv-ity for commercial harvests will be en-hanced, the tons of carbon sequestered,the volume of water saved or stored, orthe amount of soil stabilized for future

generations. Instrumental benefits arenumerous, and which ones are relevant

depends on community preferences andenvironmental conditions.

Respect ethical obligations to the non-human world. Forests are increasinglyvalued for more than their utilitariancontribution to human health and wel-

fare. Environmental philosophers havebeen identifying and defending the in-trinsic values in forest ecosystems, andopinion polls suggest increasing publicsupport for the rights and integrity ofwild forests. Although such values arehard to define and quantify, scientists,managers, and the public are using con-

Journal of Forestry 33

ground where it is appropriate for hu- restore pre-European-settlement savanna tentions and educate stakeholders

_: mans and nature to coexist and inter- conditions to areas around Chicago be- (Nassauer 1995).act, where humans can actively im- came adversariesofequallyweU-meaning, Negotiate ecological constructs. People

prove nature for nature's sake. Restora- environmentally minded people who use the language of ecological science totion can build into our culture an ap- could fathom no reason to destroy trees imagine and negotiate acceptable envi-

I preciation and respect not just for wild (exotics or otherwise) that were obviously ronmental conditions. Constructs suchnature or for marketable resources but thriving and providing the community as health, integrity, naturalness, sustain-for our relationship with nature. The with a valued forest (Gobster 1997). ability, and biodiversity exist at the in-

>_ restoration ideal can help people who No matter how ecologically sound terface between science and policy.find themselves holding incompatible and well intentioned the goals of a These terms necessarily serve doublevalues--for example, those who value restoration project may be, they must duty: They are used to describe what iswood products in their homes but si- also be socially acceptable if they are to (a scientific function) and to prescribemultaneously oppose timber hat- be implemented. As in the Illinois sa- what ought to be (a political function).vests--to find a middle ground on vanna example cited above, some These distinctions place additional bur-which to stand. It can provide the ra- restoration activities may alter or re- dens on the science and practice oftionale to respect and sustain both the move environmental features, such as restoration. Constructs such as "health"ecological integrity and the human cul- trees or hedgerows, that have become need to be defined as desired qualities ofture that exist on a piece of land. In valued icons to stakeholder groups, ecological systems that combine con-

this way, restoration adds a corollary to Restoration practices must accommo- cerns about ecological structure withLeopold's land ethic by enlarging the date the social values and expectations concerns about societal needs (e.g. Nor-

notion of the community of nature to people have for existing natural lea- ton 1998; Rapport et al. 1998). That is,include people (Jordan1994). tures and incorporate them into scientists need to work with other stake-

{ Address equity and environmental restoration plans, holders to define the terms that are ulti-

l justice. It is not uncommon to find de- Conflict escalates when the expert is mately both the topic of scientific study

graded environments (e.g., landfills, less than tolerant toward citizens' alter- and the goal of forest management. Sci-

stripmines, heavy industry, abandoned native ideas about what is best ence, by itself, should not define theselots, and eroded soil) near society's least (Helford 1999). Planning procedures value-laden terms independently of thepowerful members. The reasons for the that legitimately include and seriously values held by the broader public.uneven distribution of environmental respond to their concerns can forge

degradation are many and varied and consensus on goals and thus give the Engaging the Local Communityreflect social priorities and political his- project a chance of being implemented A strong community of volunteerstory (Gottlieb 1993). Restoration pro- (i.e., Brunson 1998; Francis 1999). has been the key to success in manyjects can be selected to address such in- Mitigate restoration impacts through restoration projects, and managersequities and designed to generate a sus- project implementation. People learn have come to realize that maintaining

ii tainable livelihood for the affected citi- about environmental change and eval- this community not only benefits indi-,

zens (Gadgil and Guha 1995). uate environmental conditions based vidual restoration projects but also canon what they see, and there are numer- help them achieve broader natural re-

Designing Restoration Plans ous techniques of site design that can source management and societal goals.

Restoration projects can assume help make restoration more socially ac- Understand what motivates volun-many shapes and serve many goals, ceptable, teers to participate. A restoration pro-

_ Finding the alternative that is both For example, the removal of mature gram needs to provide the full range ofecologically sound and socially accept- exotic trees that currently block an un- benefits volunteers seek if it is to sus-

: able is the challenge, attractive view could be delayed until tain their volunteer efforts (Miles et al.Promote sociallyacceptablerestoration strategically planted natives fill in 1998). Restoration volunteers want to

management practices and outcomes, enough to serve the same buffer func- make a tangible difference in environ-Public understandings and expecta- tion. Restoration activities that appear mental issues they care about, learntions of the forest are many and varied messy, uncared for, and hence unat- technical and leadership skills, and find

(Kempton et al. 1995). Clearly there tractive could be framed by visual cues the social networks, friendships, andexists widespread concern about clean of care, such as fencing or mowed sense of community that volunteerair and water, but the more specific strips. Likewise, uniforms, visible su- communities create. Restoration activ-concerns--such as biodiversity, exotic pervision, public relations, and related ities also provide profound experiences

versus native species, and global warm- efforts can be used to signify that the for volunteers. Through intimate in-ing--are not nearly as widely shared or volunteers who are cutting, burning, volvement with nature, restorationistsunderstood. Conflict and litigation are and removing vegetation in public come to appreciate the scientific, his-consequences of these varied under- areas have the approval of responsible torical, cultural, and mythological sto-

i standings and expectations, authorities. And of course, signs can al- ries that lie beneath sensuous qualitiesFor example, well-meaning, environ- ways be planted, along with the desired that appear on the surface of the land-

mentally minded people attempting to vegetation, to explain management in- scape (Foster 1998).

a4 August 2000

Increase skill levels and expertiseamong volunteers. A common com-plaint lodged by some critics ofrestora- The Volunteer Stewardship Network:

tion is that the volunteers who imple- Chicago's Model formerit the plans lack professional train-

ing. Increasing the skills and expertise Community-Based Restorationof volunteer restorationists might there-fore be a goal for those who managevolunteer-driven restoration programs(see "The Volunteer Stewardship Net-work"). Informal peer teaching in thefield is a critical component of knowl-edge and a valued aspect of the volun-teer experience (Ross 1994), but formaltraining and certification programs canalso help equip volunteers with the ex-pertise and credentials needed to do thejob right. Combined with the appropri-ate level of professional supervision, thiseducational mix can create a corps ofcitizen stewards who remain motivated

and are trusted by the broader public(Harris 1997).

Create informed constituencies fornatural areas management. Restorationprograms that are volunteer-driven adda distinct value to ecological restora-tion that does not accrue to programsrun by in-house staff or outside con-tractors. By engaging local citizens inlong-term, hands-on efforts, managersdevelop an informed constituency forbroader land management concerns.As a form of collaborative manage-ment, volunteer-based restoration ef-forts have virtues that mirror those ex-

pressed in the ideals of participatorydemocracy--in this case, creating acommunity of citizens who are activelyinvolved in learning about, participat-ing in, and taking responsibility for theconsequences of land management de-cisions. This critical, "value-added" di-mension of restoration is natural re-source conservation education at its

best, and it is missed entirely in restora-tion programs that operate withoutvolunteers (Light and Higgs 1996).

ConclusionThe humanities and social sciences

can make many contributions that will which restoration occurs. The human- agement of nature require collabora-help managers meet the challenges of ities can help justify the selection tion from all fields of formal scholar-restoration and realize its opportuni- among the many ecologically possible ship and professional management, asties. The social sciences can help iden- and socially acceptable restoration well as a real and meaningful sensitiv-tify what is socially acceptable and po- goals by placing that decision in the ity to existing conditions, local knowl-litically feasible and help explain the context of what it says about society, edge, and the unique factors that makesocial mechanisms and processes by Ultimately, the restoration and man- special, valued, and important each in-

Journal of Forestry 35

stance of society's relationship with na- Restoration& ManagementNotes15(1):32-37. tion: The role of ecologists in environmental policyture. We have summarized here what GO_S'rEK,EH., and R.B. HULL,eds. 2000. Restoringha- formation. EcologicalApplications8(2):350-64.

we believe are some of the more ira- ture:Perspectives_omthesocialscieneesandhumanities. RAPPORT,DJ., C. GAUDET,].R. KARR,J.S. BAn,ON, C.Washington, DC: Island Press, BOHLEN,W. JACKSON,B. JON_;S,R.J. NMMAN,B.

portant issues that limit or enable GOn'HEB, R. 1993. Forcingthespring: The transforma- NORTON,and M.M. POt.LOCK.1998. Evaluating

restoration projects, but we provide tion of the Americanenvironmentalmovement.Wash- landscape health: Integrating goals and biophysical

considerably more detail elsewhere ington, DC: Island Press. process. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 53:

(Gobster and Hull 2000). HARRIS,J. 1997. Certification for responsiblerestoration, t-15.Restoration&Management Notes15(1):5. Ross, L.M. 1994. Illinois' volunteercorps:A model pro-

HELFORD,R.M. 1999. Rediscoveringthe presettlement gram with deep roots in the prairie. Restoration &Literature Cited landscape: Making the oak savannaecosystem"real." ManagementNotes 12(1):57-59.

BRUNSON,M.W. 1998. Beyond wilderness:Broadening Science,Technology&Human Values24:55-79 SAGOFr,M. 1988. Ethics, ecology,and the environment:theacceptabilityof limits ofacceptablechange. In Pro- INGERSON,A. 1994. Tracking and testing the nature- Integrating scienceand law. TennesseeLaw Review56:ceedings--LimitsofAccepmbleChangeand relatedplan- culture dichotomy. In Historical ecology."Cultural 77-229.

ningpmcesses:Progressandfuture directions,eds. S.E knowledgeand changinglandscapes,ed. C. Crumley, SENECAH,S. 1996. Forever wild or forever in battle:McCool and D.N. Cole, 44-48. General Technical 43-66. Santa Fe:Schoolof American Research. Metaphors of empowerment in the continuing con-ReportINT-371. Ogden, UT: USDA ForestService. JORDAN,W.R.1994. Sunflowerforest:Ecologicalrestora- troversyover the Adirondacks.In Earthralk:Commu-

COSTANZA, R., R. D'ARGE, R. DEGROOT,S. FARBER, M. tion as the basis for a new environmental paradigm, nication empowermentfor environmentalaction,eds.

GRASSO,B. HANNON,K. LIMBURG,S. NAEF.M,R.V. In Beyondpreservation:Restoringand inventing land- S.A. Muir and T.L. Veenendall, 95-t 18. Westport,O'NEILL,J. PARUELO,R.G. RASKIN,E SUTTON,and scapes,eds. D. Baldwin, ]. Deluce, and C. Pletsch, Connecticut: Praeger.M. VANDENBELT.1998. The valueof theworld's eco- 17-34. Minneapolis:Universityof Minnesota Press. STEvENS,W.K. 1995. Mimcle underthe oaks:The revival

system services and natural capital. EcologicalEco- KATZ,E. 1992. The big lie:Human restorationof nature, of natureinAmerica.New York:Pocket Books.

nomics25:3-15. Researchin Philosophyand Technology12:231-4 1. WESTRA,L., and J. LEMONS.1995. Perspectiveson eco[og-Fos'rl-;R,C. 1998.The narrative and the ambient in en- KEMPTON,W., J.S. BOSTER,and J.A. HARrLEY.1995. icalintegrity.Dordrecht: KluwerAcademicPublishers.

vimnmental aesthetics. Journal of Aestheticsand Art EnvironmentalvaluesinAmerieanculture.Cambridge:Criticism56:127-38. MIT Press.

FRANCIS,M. 1999. Proactivepractice:Visionarythought LIGHT,A., and E. HIGGS.1996. The politics of ecologi-

and participatory action in environmental design, cal restoration. EnvironmentalEthics18:227-47. R. Bruce Hull (e-mail: hullrb@vt.edu) is

Places12(2):60_;8. MILES,I., W.C. SULLIVAN, and EE. Kuo. 1998. Ecolog- associateprofessor, Collegeof NaturalRe-GADGIL,M., and R.GuHA.1995. Ecologyandequiry:The icalrestorationvolunteers:Thebenefitsofparticipa- sources, ½"rginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

useand abuse of nature in contemporaryIndia. New tion. UrbanEcosystems2(1):27-42. 24061-0324; Paul H. Gobster is researchYork:Routledge. NASSAUEI',,J.I. 1995. Messyecosystems,orderly frames.

GOBSTER,EH. 1997. The Chicago wilderness and its LandscapeJournal 14(2):161-70. social scientist, North Central Researchcritics, III. The other side:A surveyof the arguments. NO_rON, B.G. 1998. Improving ecologicalcommunica- Station, USDA Forest Service, Chicago.

" nOur commltme t to you, our c• Best Quality • Best S, • Price• Best Guarantee • Bes

• Knowledgeable Custoler Staff

•__ enough to give you personalservice...

,__ enough to offer you everything you need!General Supply Corporation,P.O. Box 9347, 303 Commerce Park 6-9347

36 Att_ust 2000