Tucked between the bustling city of Seattle and the majestic Olympic Peninsula, lies a “working forest” called Green Mountain. As part of the State Lands Trust, the primary purpose of this landscape is to generate revenue for educational institutions. This is done by periodically harvesting and selling the mountain’s douglas fir trees. Once logging is complete, foresters plant saplings to maintain the generational cycle: plant, grow, cut, sell.
Between harvests, outdoor enthusiasts are granted access to a number of trails that zig-zag up Green Mountain. However, venturing through this working forest is a very different experience when compared to nearby hikes such as Mount Walker or the Duckabush River Trail. The human impact on this landscape is undeniable. Because the saplings are planted at the same time, the new growth is artificially uniform. The exposed areas which were recently harvested also make one question: is this a forest or a tree farm?
It turns out, the answer is currently up for debate. On Green Mountain, foresters practice variable retention harvesting (VRH). When they log the douglas fir trees, instead of clearcutting, foresters leave a percentage of the landscape intact in order to support local wildlife and preserve the ecosystem. VRH strikes a balance between environmental conservation and economic development goals.
Though the concept of VRH seems straightforward, it isn’t easy to determine the amount of forest that needs to be preserved to maintain biodiversity. To solve this puzzle, scientists began an experiment in the 1990s aptly called DEMO - Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options - to test how logging impacts douglas fir forests. Over decades, researchers compared plots that preserved 15, 40, 75, and 100% of the trees.
While this study was underway, the US Federal Government adopted the Northwest Forest Plan which required at least 15% retention on Federal lands. Washington State also adopted a Habitat Conservation Plan which outlined similar VRH requirements.
In 2009, DEMO researchers published their short-term findings, stating that “the current federal standard, which requires retaining live trees in 15% of each harvest unit, does little to achieve the intended goal of microclimatic amelioration”. In other words, the adopted standards are unable to sustain the forest's environmental benefits. To promote healthy and sustainable ecosystems moving forward, more trees need to be saved.
This report revived tensions between environmental activists and the communities that are economically dependent upon tree harvesting. They debated: What's more important, the environment or the local revenue? At Green Mountain, revenue currently takes precedence.
However, technological innovations may be the game changer that Green Mountain needs. Materials, like mass timber, are opening up novel opportunities to use small-diameter wood products in building materials rather than traditional lumber. This innovation has the potential to create co-beneficial markets that promote forest health, support hazard mitigation, and generate more environmentally friendly revenue streams.
Looking across the expanse of stumps and saplings, I hold onto hope. Perhaps the roadway signs marking these State Lands are right: "Foresters plant forests anew so future generations will have forests too". I only wish I could see this vision fully realized.
