This is the second installment of a two-part series on the Forest Service seeking to amend the Northwest Forest Plan. Part 1 examined the motivation of Forest Service bureaucrats to release themselves from the shackles of the plan, all the while playing up happy talk about ecosystems and sustainability and downplaying the sad truth of more roading and logging. Part 2 examines how to strengthen the Northwest Forest Plan for the benefit of this and future generations.
Figure 1. Pacific fisher. The imperiled northern California–southern Oregon distinct population segment is moving toward protection under the Endangered Species Act. The Northwest Forest Plan didn’t do enough to prevent its continued decline. Source: Bruce Hayward (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
While indeed the world’s largest and longest ecosystem management plan, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) is neither the 11th Commandment nor the 28th Amendment. It will be changed—likely for the worse—because Forest Service managers want to weaken the plan so it cannot be used in a court of law to hold bureaucrats to account for violating its standards. Nonetheless, it is important to advocate for an improved NWFP and seek other measures to protect and restore mature and old-growth forests for the benefit of this and future generations.
A Changing Socioeconomic-Climatic Landscape
Coming up on three decades old, the NWFP is a bit long in the tooth. This largest of landscape-level conservation plans needs to be adjusted to account for changed circumstances. Significant new scientific information ought to be incorporated into the plan. Social attitudes and preferences increasingly favor nature, scenery, climate, and recreation and disfavor logging, grazing, and mining. As human population grows, so does the number of recreationists who view the federal forests as parklands, not timbersheds.
Native Americans are increasingly asserting treaty rights, if not also asserting inherent rights to federal public lands, some of which are compatible with conservation and some not. Conservation interests increasingly view federal public forestlands as landscape-level biodiversity refuges; watersheds that should shed water for fish, wildlife, and people and not shed sediment due to roading and logging; scenic vistas and recreation (pronounced “RE-creation”) oases; and as working forests that work to remove polluting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and restore it to the biosphere.
On the other hand, Big Timber, what’s left of it that still relies on federal public lands, still longs for the days of big quantities of board feet coming out as big logs. Timber-addicted counties, though fewer than before, are still agitating to return to their glory days of educating children and filling potholes by clear-cutting ancient forests.
Figure 2. New trees growing out of fallen dead trees, an argument against salvage logging, which would send all those nurse logs-to-be to the mill after a natural disturbance of fire or wind or volcanoes. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Strengthening the Northwest Forest Plan
When the final NWFP was announced in April 1994, I remember feeling as conservation director of what was then Oregon Natural Resources Council and is now Oregon Wild both great joy and significant apprehension. The political half of my brain recognized the magnificent and unprecedented conservation achievement, while the ecological half of my brain recognized that it wasn’t enough. A million acres of mature and old-growth forest were still subject to clear-cutting. The northern spotted owl was projected to further approach extinction before coming back from the brink as the hammered forest within the late-successional reserves grew old again. At enviro gatherings that followed, I always suggested that we use the first half of our time together to celebrate and the second half to outline the work yet to be done. Now is the time to focus on what we might have discussed in that second half.
Figure 3. Marten. The coastal population has recently been listed under the Endangered Species Act, suggesting that the Northwest Forest Plan isn’t doing enough to conserve the species. Source: Evelyn Bull (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
In preparation for developing my list of recommended improvements to the NWFP, I consulted not only myself but also these sources:
• “The World’s Largest Ecosystem Management Plan: The Northwest Forest Plan After a Quarter-Century,” a 2022 article that appeared in Lewis and Clark Law School’s Environmental Law. The authors are Professor Michael Blumm, a longtime analyst of and commentator on public land law; Susan Jane Brown, a litigating attorney (until recently with the Western Environmental Law Center) who has often held the federal forest agencies to account under the NWFP and the nation’s public lands conservation laws; and Chelsea Stewart-Fusek, who was a law student at Lewis and Clark and is now an associate attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.
Figure 4. Old-growth incense cedar. Source: Sandy Lonsdale (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
• The Making of the Northwest Forest Plan, a new book by Norm Johnson, Jerry Franklin, and Gordon Reeves. All were intimately involved in developing scientific recommendations for what would become the Northwest Forest Plan and have continued since then to advise administrative and legislative policy makers. (See my Public Lands Blog post “Preremembering Jerry Franklin and Norm Johnson, Oregon Conservationists.”
These two publications’ recommendations to improve the NWFP have significant overlap. I’ll start with the major recommendations of Johnson et al. as listed in the handy Table 12.1 (“Recommended changes to help achieve the goals of the NWFP”) on page 360 of their book. Below where you see ALL CAPITAL (and centered) TEXT, it’s quoted directly from that table. The usual regular text is my commentary and/or recommendations.
Figure 5. Black bear. These creatures prefer dense conifer-deciduous forests. Source: Sandy Lonsdale (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
CONSERVING OLDER FORESTS AND TREES ON FEDERAL LANDS—A PRIMARY GOAL AND FOCUS
MOIST FORESTS
• CEASE LOGGING OF OLDER, UNMANAGED FORESTS AND OF REMNANT OLD TREES IN YOUNGER FORESTS.
Amen.
Figure 6. Working forests. Mature and old-growth forests do the work of removing massive amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and safely storing it in vegetation and soils. Source: Gary Braasch (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
• PROHIBIT SALVAGE LOGGING IN LSRs [late successional reserves].
Hallelujah.
• ADOPT A POLICY OF AGGRESSIVE DETECTION AND SUPPRESSION OF WILDFIRES IN LSRs.
The agencies can only effectively suppress wildfire early in the fire season, at a time when many of the fires would burn relatively small acreages and relatively low intensities before going out, usually due to changed weather conditions. Such areas become “fire refugia,” defined as
locations on the landscape that burn less frequently or severely than their surroundings. In the context of mature and old forests of the PNW, we’re interested in patches of forest that persist through recent fire events as living legacies; these are refugia from high severity fire. These forests can be burned at low severity or be truly unburned, but the key characteristic is the canopy survives through the fire event and contributes live trees to the post-fire landscape mosaic.
Weather-driven (high winds, low humidity) wildfires cannot be stopped no matter how much money is spent. Spend the money making buildings safe. Most fires end because of a change in the weather or a lack of fuel.
A forest fire suppressed is merely a forest fire delayed. Such delaying can mean that the inevitable fire will be more stand-replacing than it needs to be. Better to spend the money on plantation thinning to accelerate the onset of late-successional characteristics, which includes the result that they are less susceptible to fire.
Figure 7. An example of how wildfire burns mostly in a mosaic pattern, contributing to the biodiversity and pyrodiversity of the stand. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
DRY FORESTS
• UTILIZE TREATMENTS, INCLUDING THINNING AND BURNING, TO RESTORE OLD DRY FORESTS TO APPROXIMATIONS OF THEIR HISTORICAL STATES.
Amen, with a however. Burning must always occur, either as the only treatment or the follow-up treatment after scientifically sound thinning.
Figure 8. Burned forest. The National Park Service routinely allows natural fires to burn or starts prescribed burns. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
• PLACE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY ON RETAINING, PROTECTING, AND NURTURING OLDER TREES ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE AND REVISE LSR STANDARDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT PRIORITY.
Hallelujah.
• CONSIDER SALVAGE LOGGING IN LSRs WHERE IT WILL ASSIST FUEL MANAGEMENT.
“Salvage” connotes that the trees were dedicated to timber production, which in LSRs they most certainly are not. It’s still stand-density reduction, whether the trees being removed are dead or alive. As Jerry and Norm have told me many times, if a dry-forest stand burns before it is treated (thinned), the best course is to leave the larger trees that would have been left and take the smaller trees that would have been removed in a restoration treatment had the stand not burned.
Figure 9. A few years after the infamous Warner Creek Fire on the Willamette National Forest. Look closely to see the fire scars at the base of the trees. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
CONSERVING THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL
• KILL BARRED OWLS TO PROTECT NORTHERN SPOTTED OWLS ON AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE SPOTTED OWL’S RANGE.
Amen and hallelujah. See my Public Lands Blog post entitled “B. Owl v. N. S. Owl.”
”[A]t least a portion should, praise be, “all” of the spotted owl’s range.
Figure 10. Barred owl. I love to see this owl in its native range in the American East, but all barred owls need to be barred from the American West, where they are interlopers threatening the threatened northern spotted owl. Source: Wikipedia.
CONSERVING SALMON POPULATIONS
Let’s widen the goal and explicitly include all salmonids. (Leave no trout, char, smelt, or whitefish behind, not to mention catadromous—lives in freshwater streams and spawns in the ocean, the opposite of anadromous—lamprey.)
• RESTORE SALMON HABITAT IN THE RANCHES, FARMS, CITIES, AND TOWNS OF THE LOWER WATERSHEDS.
Amen.
• WORK TOWARD LANDSCAPES THAT ALLOW FOR EXPRESSION OF A VARIETY OF LIFE HISTORIES
Hallelujah.
• INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RIPARIAN THINNING IN FEDERAL FOREST PLANTATIONS.
The Forest Service is doing quite a bit already, including in mature natural stands more than eighty years of age in riparian areas. It doesn’t need to increase the rate overall but only in plantations.
Figure 11. Old-growth Port Orford cedar. Source: Steve Miller (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
HARVESTING TIMBER ON FEDERAL FORESTS
Can we call it logging and not harvesting? One cannot reap what one does not sow. Only trees that were planted by humans qualify as harvestable. Logging should be neither a primary nor a secondary goal of the Northwest Forest Plan.
MOIST FORESTS
• CONTINUE THINNING YOUNGER FORESTS ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE, CONDUCT VARIABLE RETENTION HARVEST IN YOUNGER MATRIX AND SALVAGE LOGGING YOUNGER TREES IN BURNED MATRIX.
“Younger forests” could be misconstrued as natural young forests, of which there are precious few. I hope the authors meant “younger plantation forests.” There should be no more “Matrix” (forests dedicated to logging) and therefore no salvage logging of any kind in moist forests (see below). Any logs sent to the mill should be merely the by-product of scientifically sound variable density thinning in moist forest plantations.
Figure 12. Trees in a dense artificial plantation. After clear-cutting, some forests may recover on their own. However, dense artificial plantations can often benefit ecologically from careful thinning to reduce tree density and help restore natural variability of species and structure. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press 2004).
DRY FORESTS
• REDUCE STAND DENSITIES ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE, SALVAGE YOUNGER TREES IN BURNED MATRIX, CONSIDER SALVAGE IN LSRs TO ASSIST FUTURE FUEL MANAGEMENT.
Yes, reduce stand densities in many, but not all, places. Again, “salvage” logging is only appropriate in the context of there being dead trees that were intended to grow to produce logs for the mill. No lands should be allocated to “Matrix” (forests dedicated to logging) in an amended NWFP. Small logs, dead or alive, cut in pursuit of scientifically sound ecological restoration of dry forests (and always followed by prescribed burning of the stand) can go to the mill.
REVISING LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVES
• REVISE THE ENTIRE NETWORK AT THE SAME TIME, USING CRITICAL HABITAT AS A GUIDE.
Johnson et al. elaborate:
For Moist Forests, changes in the LSR network that shift more mature and old-growth forest into LSRs could be balanced by shifting some plantations currently in LSRs into Matrix.
This is not a good idea. In the first place, the ratios of native forest to plantations in LSRs and Matrix are not that different. In the second place, the plantations are generally 40-acre pockmarks defacing a landscape of native, generally mature and old-growth forests. Swapping mature and old-growth acres for plantation acres would result in a continuously fragmented landscape, even if the plantations were managed on longer rotations.
It’s time to end as a goal the production of timber in the NWFP area. It should not be a zero-sum game where an acre gained for conservation must be offset with an acre lost from conservation. Timber as a by-product of scientifically sound ecological restoration thinning can meet the multiple use mandate.
In using critical habitat (CH) as a guide, it should include CH for all Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species (northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, various Pacific salmon stock, coastal marten, etc.) but also include other imperiled megafauna, including, but not limited to Pacific fisher, Canada lynx, gray wolf, red tree voles, etc. A landscape-level conservation plan should prevent species from becoming eligible for ESA protection.
• CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE LSR STRATEGY FOR DRY FORESTS.
All dry forests should be in LSRs, albeit reserves that allow for the removal of excess younger trees that are hindering the survival of the increasingly rare older trees.
Figure 13. Old-growth Douglas-fir in the western Cascade Range of Oregon. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
ASSIST TRIBAL NATIONS IN ACHIEVING GOALS AND RIGHTS
I’m choking a bit on “goals” here. Of course, rights reserved in treaties between sovereign tribes and the United States must be respected. Johnson et al. seem to be defining “goals” as rights nontreaty tribes might have reserved had the United States concluded treaties with them. “Goals” can also be construed as the wishes of a tribe regarding how federal lands are managed.
• GREATLY INCREASE EMPHASIS IN FOREST PLANS AND PROJECTS ON THEIR GOALS AND RIGHTS.
Some tribes have a goal of getting federal public lands back, if not also nonfederal lands. Some have a goal of hundred-year sloppy clear-cut rotations on public lands in their area of interest. Other tribes have recently received ~50 square miles of what were federal public lands in western Oregon, including significant amounts of mature and old-growth forest, and are now in the process of logging what was never-logged forest. (See my Public Lands Blog post entitled “Trump Signs DeFazio-Walden-Wyden-Merkley Bill Giving Away 50 Square Miles of Federal Public Land in Oregon.”) There are some goals of certain Native American tribal governments than are no more in the public interest that some goals of certain state and/or county governments.
In our federal system there are three sovereign entities: the federal government, the states, and tribal nations. Under the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, aka the “property clause”), Congress has all authority over federal public lands. Not states. Not tribes. Not courts. Not the executive branch. Not counties. Congress.
Of course, Congress should consider the views of the other sovereign governments, but I would hope that Congress gives greater weight to the states that call for conservation (for example, California) than the states that call for exploitation (for example, Utah). Similarly, I would hope that Congress gives greater weight to the recommendations of tribes that advocate and practice excellent stewardship of the lands within their control or historical interest rather than the tribes that do not.
Because neither states nor tribes agree, even among themselves, it is best that federal public lands be managed according to congressional direction.
• LISTEN TO THEM ON HOW TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS AND RIGHTS.
Yes, meaningful consultation with tribes on federal land management should increase.
A Couple of Bones to Pick
I have a couple of grievances with Johnson et al. (and, for that matter, Blumm et al.).
Logging Is So Twentieth Century
For more than four decades, policy makers have turned to Norm Johnson, Jerry Franklin, Gordon Reeves, and other academics to advise them on how to navigate the politically hazardous shoals of Big Timber and how a politician can appease constituents who favor nature over board feet, watersheds over roads, and intact forests over clear-cuts. Norm, Jerry, and Gordy have done tremendous service to their nation and their ecosystems. But now most federal and statewide elected officials in the range of the northern spotted owl no longer need to fear the hazardous shoals of Big Timber. While not all is smooth sailing ahead, failing to deliver big timber to Big Timber is a shoal to worry about no longer. As well, these elected officials have also figured out how to get money to educate children and fill potholes without logging federal forests.
While both Johnson et al. and Blumm et al. recognize that Big Timber is nowhere near as big as it was and will likely continue to diminish, both make unnecessary and undesirable recommendations to continue administering the NWFP area for the benefit of timber production, rather than fully for the benefit of nature, climate, biological diversity, watershed integrity, scenery, recreation, and the like. Logging—save for a small amount to aid the restoration of dry forest landscapes and to restore moist forest monoculture plantations—is harmful to higher and better uses of the federal forestlands.
Federal logging levels have decreased dramatically since the first injunction against logging northern spotted owl habitat in 1989. It wasn’t just because of the owls, s logging levels have decreased across the National Forest System (Figure 14). The current contribution of federal timber to the nation’s wood supply is ~4 percent. More than that amount is exported each year from this country as raw logs. Almost twice that amount of usable wood goes into landfills each year. Interestingly/luckily/ironically, the nonfederal timberlands (and landfills) can easily assume the entire timber supply burden.
Figure 14. Timber sales on US national forests, 1940 to 2016. The northern spotted owl and Pacific Northwest ancient forests became a legal and political issue in 1989. (Yes, the graphic quality sucks [my limitation]. X-axis is 1940 to 2016; Y-axis is 0 to 16 billion board feet.) The NWFP was adopted in 1994. Source: Johnson et al. 2023.
Society needs a trained workforce to do essential restoration work (such as thinning of moist forest plantations; thinning of smaller trees in dry forest stands hammered by fire suppression, large-tree logging, and livestock grazing; removing of unnecessary roads; and making necessary roads less damaging to wildlife and watersheds). But we don’t need to sell the timber to get the money to do the restoration work, which often becomes less restorative and more exploitive as the project is driven by the “need” to get logs to the mill.
Figure 15. Nature reclaiming what once was an all-weather gravel logging road. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Nonfederal Lands Are Also Needed for Conservation
The recommendations of Johnson et al. wisely draw attention to the importance of nonfederal lands for the “conservation of salmon populations.” The same should be said for the importance of nonfederal lands for the conservation of terrestrial species. The federal public lands within the NWFP have assumed much of the conservation burden of having functioning ecosystems and watersheds across the landscape and over time. But federal lands cannot do it all—unless there are more federal lands. The NWFP should call for terrestrial habitat restoration on nonfederal lands as well—better yet. to reconvert private timberlands to public forestlands.
Figure 16. Habitat destruction on nonfederal lands. In their recommendations to improve the Northwest Forest Plan, Franklin, Johnson, and Reeves call for salmonid habitat restoration on nonfederal lands but make no similar call for terrestrial habitat restoration on nonfederal lands. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Other Major Matters Worth Addressing
Way back in 1994, the NWFP was essentially a northern spotted owl conservation plan with marbled murrelet and Pacific salmon conservation bolted on. Glued on was some consideration of other native species (aka S&M, survey and manage). Time has shown that the NWFP didn’t do enough to prevent the imperilment of several other native species of fish and wildlife. In addition, other matters of public concern were overlooked, ignored, or unknown in developing the NWFP. These matters ought to be addressed now.
Figure 17. Lynx, an imperiled species that received scant attention in the Northwest Forest Plan. Source: George Wuerthner (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
The NWFP amendment will likely focus on five issues: wildfire resilience, climate change adaptation, tribal inclusion, old growth, and rural communities. It’s a rather short and incomplete list. It’s best to address more matters now because—if history is any guide—the individual national forest plans will never be revised. Efficiencies and economies of scale can be achieved by addressing such matters at the landscape rather than the individual national forest level. Here’s my longer list of matters worth addressing.
Figure 18. A member of the north Oregon coast distinct population segment of red tree voles. This old-growth obligate species has been found worthy of protection under the Endangered Species Act. Source: Stephen DeStefano.
Other Imperiled Species
Since adoption of the NWFP, the coastal marten has been listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The same goes for numerous stocks of salmon. The Pacific fisher is not ESA listed but only because an alternative conservation path was offered to forestland (federal, state, private, and tribal) landowners. The North Oregon Coast Range distinct population segment of the red tree vole is warranted for listing under the ESA but precluded by higher priorities. Gray wolves are returning to the NWFP area and need to be made more welcome. Wolf-friendly measures include equitably ending livestock grazing and reducing road densities. I could go on.
Figure 19. Gray wolf. Because gray wolves are returning to the range of the northern spotted owl, the Northwest Forest Plan should be made more welcoming to them. Source: George Wuerthner (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Drinking Water Watersheds
The NWFP established two kinds of “key watersheds”:
Tier 1: watersheds that “have strong fish populations or habitat, high restoration potential, or both”;
Tier 2: watersheds that “provide sources of high-quality water.”
As people, not just fish, need water, a Tier 3 key watershed should be established: “source water protection areas.” In addition, protections of all key watersheds need to be strengthened (and, by the way, all watersheds are key to some beings).
Beavers: A Crossover Species Conserving Forests and Streams
Bringing back beavers at scale can do much to mitigate the increasing loss pf water from snowmelt and glacial melt. Beaver-dammed streams serve as natural firebreaks. The amended NWFP should facilitate wide-scale beaver reintroduction through measures such as removing livestock grazing and banning the trapping of beavers on national forest lands. See my Public Lands Blog posts “Leave It to Beavers” Part 1 and Part 2.
Figure 20. Beaver. Perhaps the most important step to help Pacific Northwest forests adapt to climate change is to restore beavers at landscape levels. An amended Northwest Forest Plan could do that. Source: Don Getty (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Climate Change Mitigation, Not Just Climate Change Adaptation
In its NWFP amendment, the Forest Service plans to address climate change adaptation (“the process of adjusting to the current and future effects of climate change”) but not climate change mitigation (“human intervention that reduces the sources of GHG emissions and/or enhances the sinks”). Adaptation measures should include reducing human-caused ecosystem and watershed stressors such as roads, logging, and livestock grazing. The Forest Service generally thinks that logging aids adaptation, while it generally does not. Ending most logging on federal forestlands is a tremendous climate change mitigation opportunity, but the agency isn’t considering such.
Figure 21. Old-growth Sitka spruce on the Siuslaw National Forest. Source: Gary Braasch (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Locking in the Conservation Gains for the Benefit of This and Future Generations
If certain national forest lands are important enough to protect from logging that can harm the values for which they were allocated for protection, those lands are important enough to protect from mining. Under the archaic 1872 Mining Law, national forest lands administratively dedicated to conservation are open to anyone who wants to file a mining claim—unless the lands are separately “withdrawn” from such mining in another administrative process. The Forest Service could choose to preemptively preclude oil, gas, geothermal, and other energy development on conservation lands, but it rarely does so.
All conservation lands in the NWFP should be withdrawn from mineral location, mineral leasing, mineral sale, geothermal leasing, and the like. The same administrative withdrawal provision specified by Congress to protect important federal public lands from harm can also be used to withdraw them for public purposes. Withdrawal for positive uses is as important as withdrawal from negative uses.
Figure 22. Old-growth Sitka spruce in the Oregon Coast Range. Source: Lost to history (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Preforests (aka Complex Early Seral Habitat)
Even more rare and biologically diverse than old-growth forests are preforests, also known as complex early seral forest habitats. Such forests are the product of stand-replacing events in generally moist forest types. Most of the trees in the stand are killed, by fire, wind, or volcano. The common practice historically was for the Forest Service to “salvage” the disturbance by pulling out any usable logs (there are always many) and then planting a monoculture of Douglas-fir. A complex preforest has a plethora of grasses and forbs with a legacy of big old trees, both living and dead and standing and fallen, interspersed among the multitude of blossoms. Salvage logging must end. See my Public Lands Blog posts “Preforests in the American West” Part 1 and Part 2.
Figure 23. Salvage logging after a wildfire: akin to mugging a burn victim. Source: Ken Crocker (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Congress and the Northwest Forest Plan
Congress should do two things regarding the Northwest Forest Plan. First, Congress should leave the Northwest Forest Plan alone unless it is going to improve it by establishing or expanding wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers and the like—or legislating permanent protection of mature and old-growth forests.
Second, Congress should transfer all federal public lands in western Oregon administered by the Bureau of Land Management within the NWFP area to either the Forest Service to become national forest lands or to the Fish and Wildlife Service to become national wildlife refuges. This will result in better management and save the taxpayers some money.
Figure 24. A mature forest in the proposed Hardesty Mountain Wilderness. Source: Kurt Jenson (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
The White House and the Northwest Forest Plan
The White House should ensure that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management issue an enduring administrative rule that conserves and restores mature and old-growth forests on all federal forestlands. Such a rule can dramatically increase the chances that protections for mature and old-growth forests can endure future hostile administrations, as well as bureaucrats who resist having their administrative discretion limited.
Figure 25. The Malone jumping slug, somewhat protected by the Northwest Forest Plan. The mollusk doesn’t really jump but falls. However, if you don’t know your malacology, you may believe it jumped on you. Source: William Leonard (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
Bottom Line: The prospective defeminization/emasculation of the Northwest Forest Plan by the Forest Service is likely inevitable. All the more reason for the Biden administration to promulgate an enduring administrative rule that conserves and restores mature and old-growth forests not just within the range of the northern spotted owl but on all federal forestlands—both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management—from the interior of Alaska to the Sierra de Luquillo in Puerto Rico and from the Laguna Mountains of southern California to the White Mountains of New England.
Figure 26. A stand now permanently protected by Congress and no longer at the whim of an administrative plan. Look closely for the human serving as scale. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).
For More Information
Blumm, Michael, Susan J. Brown, and Chelsea Stewart-Fusek. 2022. “The World’s Largest Ecosystem Management Plan: The Northwest Forest Plan After a Quarter-Century,” Environmental Law.
Johnson, K. Norman, Jerry F. Franklin, and Gordon H. Reeves. 2023. The Making of the Northwest Forest Plan. Oregon State University Press.
Figure 27. The legacy of old-growth forests: inherited from our ancestors and borrowed from our successors. Source: Gary Braasch (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness, Timber Press, 2004).