50 



HERITAGE FORESTS 



The examples above represent a few of the experiences encountered in must three 

 years through the Heritage Forests program created by American Forests. In this 

 program, we raise private donatiqns for forest ecosystem restoration projects — ^tree 

 planting, in short. 



We have had exceptional cooperation from federal and state agencies. We need to 

 single out the Bureau of Land Management, whose employees nave been quick to 

 jvimp at the chance for a public-private partnership that could help them restore 

 some of the degraded areas they administer. But we nave also had excellent projects 

 with the Forest Service, a variety of state agencies, and some private sponsors. The 

 Soil Conservation Service, through its Resource Conservation and Development Pro- 

 gram, has been exceptionally gc»d at finding projects, rounding up co-sponsors, co- 

 ordinating volimteers, and helping projects succeed. 



In terms of fundraising, we nave developed outstanding partnerships with compa- 

 nies such as MasterCard, the Winery of Ernest and Jmio Gallo, Tl industries (a 

 manufacturer of picture framing materials), XTree (a computer software company), 

 Fellowes (a manufacturer of storage containers), Reese Brothers (a leader in youth 

 fundraising programs) and H. Alpert & Co. (personal care products). These compa- 

 nies, along with over 40 others, nave involved their distributors and customers in 

 a concert^ effort to raise money for tree planting in Heritage Forests. We collect 

 their contributions, along with those of school children and individuals from every 

 walk of life, and assemble enough to make specific projects possible. 



Land managers submit project proposals — often proiects that they have a portion 

 of the funds to accomplish, but not the fiill amount. Many times, local cooperators 

 add to the mix, often oringing volunteer labor to do the actual tree planting work. 



The result to date is almost 1 million trees, in over 30 projects. It's really just 

 a drop in the bucket, we know that. But the program is growing rapidly, beginning 

 to make an impact, and, more importantly, oegmning to demonstrate that people 

 who care, when they work together, truly make an important difference. 



We are tremendously pleased with this success, because we think it demonstrates 

 several lessons of great importance to your concerns with reforestation. Those in- 

 clude: 



1. People care, and they will help. The American public loves its forests, and if 

 you show them how they can contribute, within their means, to a bona fide improve- 

 ment in those forests, they will do so. 



2. Land managing professionals, in every agency, love the forests in their care, 

 and agonize over the mability to get funding support to do the tough ecosystem res- 

 toration jobs that don't show promise of clear payback in terms of timber or other 

 financial return. We must not let our attention to budget controls movent us fix)m 

 being willing to do what our stewardship responsibility demands. The fact that a 

 few private dollars can make such a difference suggests that federal budget prior- 

 ities need a hard look. 



3. Ecosystem restoration is possible, but not always easy. In some places, we've 

 had failures. If we keep working on tough sites, we'll have mture failures. Our Her- 

 itage Forest partners support that approach. We'll keep working on those failures 

 until we turn them into successes, if we can figure out a way. 



FOREST MANAGEMENT POUCY IMPUCATIONS 



All of the above brings new challenges to forest managers. The first challenge may 

 be to some fairly strongly-held views that have developed both among foresters, en- 

 vironmentalists, and the general public. 



Trees are not a crop like long-lived com, and that becomes even more evident 

 under climate change conditions. Trees, even in intensively-managed forests, are 

 part of a much more complex ecosystem than agricultural crops, more at risk fix)m 

 changes in ecosystem processes and environmental impacts. Crops that live and die 

 in a year or two can be altered to meet new conditions; trees that Uve for 20 to 400 

 years provide far fewer opportunities. 



Forests simply cannot oe totally removed from a site one day, then replanted the 

 next, without goin^ through significant micro-climate and site changes that may, in 

 fact, prevent seedlings from successfully establishing. As a young neld scientist for 

 the &)il Conservation Service, I measured summer mid-day soil surface tempera- 

 tures of over 150° F. on open south-facing granitic slopes in southern Idaho. Our 

 attempts at re-establishing vegetation resulted only in tender young plants being 

 cooked at the soil surface. 



Had those sites been shaded — even shaded for 2-3 hours at the peak sim angle, 

 the situation might have been tolerable. As it was, it was impossible. It is my un- 

 derstanding that similar situations were documented by the Forest Intensified Re- 



