Seeing the Forest Through New Eyes: Connections Between Restoration Planning and Forestry

by Mariah Thomson, Habitat Restoration Specialist

Like many, I entered the realm of riparian habitat restoration by working on a restoration crew. For two years, I worked alongside others removing non-native species and replacing them with trees and shrubs that have been thriving in this region for thousands of years. We often returned the following season to maintain the site, freeing the newly planted natives from the grips of competing vegetation. 

This cycle of restoration allows crew members to become familiar with the early stages of restoration, though their relationship with the land they work on is brief. Since we primarily interact with the native trees and vegetation in the seedling stage, it’s like meeting a friend in kindergarten only to lose touch after elementary school. 

After two seasons of riparian restoration implementation, I transitioned into a role at Snohomish Conservation District that allowed me to plan and manage similar projects to improve habitat for salmon. Salmon are the bridge between our ecosystems. Traveling from oceans to estuaries, wetlands to streams, they cycle nutrients from the ocean back to the forest. They also hold immense cultural importance to Salish Sea tribes—to lose the salmon would be a loss of a way of life. 

Working towards salmon restoration is an honor and it gave my job new meaning. However, my involvement was still limited to the early stages of forest growth. In fact, I did not think of our plantings as a forest as I meticulously selected trees and shrubs that matched the site conditions and would provide long-term habitat for salmon. 

Knowing I would only manage the sites in the first few years, it was difficult to picture what the plantings would look like when they grew older and outlived me. I had only seen these sites in the first few years of growth, I couldn’t picture what they would look like twenty years from now.

Sure, I’ve hiked in mature forests, but would this grow up to mirror those which I perceived as “untouched” or “natural?” 

Later I would learn that 75 percent of forest lands in western Washington are younger than 100 years old due to major disturbances such as timber harvest, fires, or windstorms. 

Having planted numerous trees and supported others in planting even more, my lack of knowledge about mature trees began to weigh on me. Isn’t this something I should know more about? My relationship with the trees was a mere blip in my lifetime, let alone theirs. I was familiar with the youngsters, but I was a stranger to my elders. 

This curiosity led me to shadow Snohomish Conservation District’s forester, Stacey Dixon, in an effort to learn as much as possible about trees and how they’re managed. My intention was to make connections between riparian planning and forestry. So far, I had focused my gaze to the ground, selecting trees and shrubs and returning to find them still shorter than myself. Now, it was time to look up. 

Like any good mentor, Stacey had me questioning my beliefs. Some mainstream environmentalists demonize forestry, viewing it only as detrimental and reducing the entire discipline down to the removal of trees. 

Mariah (left) with Snohomish Conservation District’s forester Stacey Dixon (right).

There are certainly destructive ways to manage a forest. However, as I’ve come to learn, there are alternatives that optimize ecological function and create a multitude of habitat benefits. Enter: Ecological Forestry. 

While riparian restoration mainly focuses on planting forests along stream corridors, forestry typically involves management of larger plots of land and plans activities with a longer time scale, often for the next forty to eighty years. Management plans are often broader in scope, focusing beyond streams and salmon. In ecological forestry, common objectives include creating diversity in tree species and age composition, increasing tree vigor and disease resistance, improving resilience to drought, and creating wildlife habitat. 

One practice that contributes to many of those objectives is managing density, often via thinning. Although many of us have been conditioned to believe cutting trees is inherently bad, this practice can often improve forest health in multiple ways. When we reduce the competition for light and nutrients, we increase the health and vigor of remaining trees. A healthier tree is more resilient to pests, disease, and drought. 

Additionally, when we reduce the density of the stand, more light is able to reach the understory. This allows new seedlings to emerge and understory species to take root. Having sufficient structural diversity benefits wildlife because different species utilize different strata of the forest. 

Ecological forestry techniques also include creating habitat features such as snags, habitat piles, and leaving large downed logs. These techniques benefit woodpeckers, owls, songbirds, squirrels, amphibians, and rodents. Keeping downed trees on the landscape is especially important since over 100 species of wildlife in the Pacific Northwest rely on dead wood for habitat. 

Forestry research also offers insights about our native tree species and the challenges they face. For example, we are observing increased die off of western redcedar. Utilizing the science around tree health directly applies to riparian restoration since we plant many of the same species. This information can help us make informed decisions and be strategic about our planting techniques to increase chances of survival.

Forestry research on topics such as climate change can also inform restoration. For example, can we increase the resilience of our forests by sourcing our seeds from one zone further south? The results of studies like this will be relevant to riparian planners who want to bolster the survivability of their plantings. Introducing more drought tolerant species is one way we can prepare for increased temperature and longer periods of drought. Diversifying tree species within forests and prioritizing tree vigor can also improve resilience to climate change. 

As restoration practitioners and forest managers, we must not shy away from actively managing the land. Both riparian restoration and forest management have a long-term impact on the landscape. Our rivers and forests are not “untouched” spaces. These conceptions of nature are perpetuating erasure given indigenous people have been actively managing land for generations. 

Tracing the history of logging in this region, we sometimes see a retreat following extensive management of the landscape. Creating conditions for overstocked stands following a logging operation, then removing ourselves from the system can lead to a decline in tree health, structural diversity, and understory development. As humans we must have faith in our ability to have a positive influence on other species and build relationships with the land. We are part of the system. We can learn from our mistakes rather than shy away. 

Riparian restoration practices and ecological forestry principles both enhance habitat. Each discipline offers expertise in different aspects of ecosystem functionality. Our ability to create and improve habitat becomes more robust when we can apply both perspectives to our projects. Each project we implement will be shaped by external factors such as funding sources, land use, and our capacity. However, having the ability to borrow techniques across disciplines can supplement projects to improve outcomes. This is a call to take an interdisciplinary approach to project planning and to consider how different perspectives apply to the land we steward.