The following editorial was published on Wednesday, in the weekly Skamania County Pioneer — which has been in business since 1893 and is the principal newspaper for Stevenson, Washington. That is where the final FAC meeting will be held next week, at Snoqualamie Lodge, and this will be in the latest news: https://www.loc.gov/item/sn88085218/
And here is the text to the editorial:
On September 25-28, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) “federal advisory committee” (FAC) will hold its final meetings at Skamania Lodge in Stevenson in its continuing effort to help repair the failing plan.
The official rationale for the committee’s formation was: “After nearly 30 years, the Northwest Forest Plan needs to be updated to accommodate changed ecological and social conditions.”
The fact is, since its inception in 1994, the NWFP has resulted in widespread catastrophic wildfires, rural unemployment, unhealthy smoke pollution, failed businesses, and millions of dead wildlife.
Directly related environmental lawsuits have only exacerbated these problems at great additional expense to taxpayers, and all was clearly predicted and could have mostly been avoided.
The FAC was formed in 2023 with 20 members asked to focus on five key areas of the plan: wildfire resilience, climate change adaptation, tribal inclusion, sustainable communities, and “conservation of old growth ecosystems.”
During their previous June 25-27 meetings in Olympia, they developed 192 Recommendations addressing these five concerns. Unfortunately, these greatly needed, considered, and well-intentioned suggestions have little likelihood of being adopted.
What went wrong and how to fix?
The NWFP had its beginning in 1993. President Bill Clinton held an all-day public meeting in Portland to address the ongoing “timber wars” between environmental activists and the forest industry.
The conflict involved commercial sales of old-growth trees on public lands in the Douglas Fir Region. A principal claim was spotted owls — recently listed as an “endangered species” — required old-growth trees to survive. Logging old-growth should therefore be illegal.
Clinton’s meeting resulted in the formation of FEMAT, or Forest Ecosystem Management Team: a small group of like-minded scientists from OSU and UW: forest ecologists, wildlife biologists, GIS techs, and economists. But no foresters, Native Americans, or affected industries.
Clinton challenged FEMAT to achieve “a balanced and comprehensive policy” that recognized the importance of rural jobs and economies to the region, while preserving “our precious old-growth forests.”
Clinton’s “five principles” can be compared to FAC’s “five keys”:
His first principle was “never forget the human and the economic dimensions of these problems,” that timber sales be based on “sound management policies,” and “where this requirement cannot be met, we need to do our best to offer new economic opportunities for year-round, high-wage, high-skill jobs.”
Second was to protect our forests for future generations; third, use sound science; fourth, a “sustainable level of timber sales”; and fifth, “make the federal government work together and work for you.”
The FEMAT scientists sequestered themselves for 90 days and produced 10 reduced-timber-sales management options. The President’s choice then became the “Clinton Plan For Northwest Forests,” and then the NWFP.
As a locally recognized forest historian and scientist, I was hired to analyze Clinton’s Plan, and my reasoned predictions soon made the cover of a national magazine. And were then forgotten.
My predictions of catastrophic wildfires and widespread rural unemployment mirrored those of other scientists, experienced foresters, and knowledgeable residents. And, unlike FEMAT’s promise of vast stands of old-growth, growing populations of rare species, and good-paying jobs in a diverse economy, our projections were accurate.
The tested and proven USFS foundation of 1897 Organic Act, 1935 10:00 A.M. Policy, and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 had created safe, beautiful forests, thriving wildlife, widespread meaningful employment, new schools, parks, and homes — and only a single western Oregon wildfire greater than 10,000 acres from 1952 until 1987.
If the FAC can somehow return the NWFP to the proven roots and policies of successful USFS management prior to 1987, then there can again be hope for our forests in rural Pacific Northwest. Otherwise, poor schools, poor jobs, dying communities, wildfires, and deadly smoke remain certain.
CLIMATE CHANGE! Huge influence that wasn’t as big an issue in the past. Sorry, but as a former USFS forester I don’t think the “solution” is as simple as the author would like it to be.
Yes there are problems now but it’s not clear how to address them. I saw what Multiple Use did to old growth stands in the Gifford Pinchot NF in the 1970’s-80’s. I was embarrassed by what my fellow foresters were doing to the landscape!
Another significant change is how development has increased in the WUI in each of the western states.
Hello “Old Woodsman” — not sure why you’re using fake name at this stage of your life — but I was also around the Gifford Pinchot (and most other national forests), before and after the 1970s. The climate hasn’t changed, and seems unlikely to do so in any meaningful way, other than the seasons most of us experience. It’s fairly obvious how to fix the problems, but probably politically impossible at this late date.
Hi Bob, in your article you state, …only a single western Oregon wildfire greater than 10,000 acres from 1952 until 1987.” Is that until 1987 or through 1987, the year of “The Siege of ’87”? I worked on the Silver Complex that year. Also, how come you don’t include 1988-1990, the years right before Judge Dwyer shut down logging?
I’m all for forest management, but I think it is hard to draw the conclusion that the large fires Oregon has been experiencing over the last 15+ years is due exclusively to reduced logging. One might be able to statistically show that correlation in another 50-70 years, but not now, not yet.
Hi Mike:
Yes, between the 1952 Vincent Creek Fire and the 1987 Silver Complex, the only fire greater than 10,000 acres in western Oregon was the 1966 Oxbow Fire on the Smith River. The fires that have resulted from the NWFP over the past 30 years were clearly predicted by me and others, based almost entirely on build-up of fuels and loss of work forces. You can use statistics to demonstrate this fact, and also to disprove it.
I would still like to see an independent group examine how well it did on:
1. The social and economic aspects as per principle “ever forget the human and the economic dimensions of these problems,” we know that there were economists involved (with differing opinions) and I wonder how many social scientists were involved. As I recall, Bob Lee, a sociologist, was not a proponent of the approach and it led to a kerfuffle with Charlie Philpot, but I haven’t been able to find copies of the letter exchange, which I think would be useful to future historians.
2. How well did the “government working together” work? The REO.. was it another level of bureaucracy or did it provide value? Has it naturally died out? What happened?
3. Survey and manage pros, cons, was it a good investment, did it add value?
4. Adaptive management areas..the story I heard that was for litigators, cutting trees experimentally was not on the table either.. is that true? What happened that they didn’t apparently work as intended?
5. However many years later, thanks to the NWFP FAC, (even though there are few people from the NWFP terrain on the E side) it is officially recognized that dry forests are different and require different management, and yet many FS people were saying that at the time. Why did it take so long to figure this out? What about SW Oregon? Were regional differences and knowledge adequately considered? To what extent was “the science” Corvallis-centered and has this monopoly been adequately broken up?
Why isn’t the FS or BLM or OSU figuring out how to do an independent review of the NWFP?
After all, one of Clinton’s principles was the government should work for us.. the same government that can do an after action review on a vehicle rollover, can’t initiate a review of a much more extensive and expensive process?
It doesn’t make sense, unless powerful entities don’t want to hear what might come up. But all the entities, OSU, FS BLM have a potential COI, so it would be interesting to design a truly independent review.
Sharon –
The monitoring reports (available here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/r6/reo/monitoring/) and the Science Synthesis (available here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr966.pdf) answer many if not most of your questions.
Another source – perhaps the Cliff Notes version – is the law review article I wrote with Professor Mike Blumm (available here: https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/faculty_articles/146/).
A longer form source is The Making of the Northwest Forest Plan by Franklin, Johnson, and Reeves (available from booksellers).
Susan Jane
Would you also say that the perceived failures of the NWFP are responsible for the increased size, frequency, and intensity of wildfires in the rest of the West? Perhaps something else is changing.
Yep. The whole NEPA-ESA-EAJA strategy was proven successful both financially and politically for the environmental industry, so they expanded their range and predictable unemployment and wildfires followed. You could look it up.
Regulations and lawsuits are the main things that have changed, although the proponents have been trying to target global warming — which hasn’t been happening — and something about a WUI and some other academic acronyms. USFS firefighting policies are another change.
Bob: You forgot the estimated 30,000+ illegal marijuana grow sites in National Parks, USFS/Interior wilderness and roadless areas, early post clear cut private industrial forest lands behind locked gates, across the landscape. Broadcast of rodenticides to protect marijuana seedling plants, dammed springs and rivulets to redirect flow to drip irrigation systems filled with systemic pesticide and NPK + Micro nutrients in chemigation uses of that system introduce pollutants into the waters of the nation. Poisoned rodents with a belly full of warfarin -like rodenticides, making them easy targets wracked by internal bleeding and seeking water with no regard to safety and security. Wyoming BLM and APHIS study of two prairie dog towns, one treated with poisonous baits and the other the control, noted that avian predators immediately concentrated on the baited town as rodents were easy pickings. Do I think Northern Spotted Owls acted any differently? None have gone to OSU School of Pharmacy. No antidote kits. Of the 12 NSP “found” in the 3500 killed Barred owl project, all had anti coagulant residue in their tissue compared to “only” 42% of Barred Owls. I say “found” because there had to be accidental takes of NSP coming to owls calls and live mice baits, and shooters. Ooops! Just a “slop over” in USFS lingo. No harm. Move on.
I always wondered if being called and counted stressed owls out..
I think it is important to look at the IMPLEMENTATION of the NWFP. In order to get work done on the ground, managers often choose the path of least resistance, which doesn’t necessarily equate to what the NWFP thought would occur. The harvest levels in the NWFP were never reached. There was a lot of discussion about this at the FAC meetings.
The REO still exists, but it is greatly reduced and no longer includes the BLM since they revised their western Oregon plan. The most active part of the REO is the Late Successional Reserve Work Group that reviews planned work in Late Successional Reserves to ensure it is consistent with the NWFP Standards & Guidelines.
Taxpayers and elected officials should have realized the NWFP wasn’t working as advertised in the first five years and done something about it. The 2002 Biscuit Fire should have been the final straw in a failed plan. Now, more than 20 years later, someone figures out it’s time to rearrange the deckchairs . . .
How was the Biscuit Fire linked to the NWFP? 2002 was only 11 years after logging plummeted. It seems like dry, windy conditions, dry lightning storms that started several fires, and a lack of firefighting resources nation-wide due to all the fires burning in Colorado and other parts of the southwest played a pretty big role.
Hi Mike: Those factors, too. Spotted owl habitat, the Donato peer review process, and subsequent salvage failures were also factors that wouldn’t have been possible without the NWFP and several of its key proponents. Ecological Forestry.
“Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible — and wrong.”
H. L. Mencken (as apparently tweaked by others)
Hi Jon: These aren’t “complex problems” — academics and politicians just want us to think they are. We know the answers and have been shown how they work. Then we added complexity where it wasn’t needed and now this.
Corollary: The first step in finding a solution that is wrong is not recognizing the complexity of the problem.
If you define the problem as the Forest Service not cutting down enough trees (“mismanagement”), then of course the simple answer is to cut down more trees.
Hi Jon: Not that you have a strong bias or anything, but please note that I have never heard of “not cutting down enough trees” being defined as “mismanagement.” You seem determined to find fault, even “IF” to have to put dumb words in other people’s mouths to make your point. If you’re trying to display your superior understanding of language or problem solving here, then you’ve failed. And you keep putting this stuff into writing!
This is a view through at least 3 sets of rose-colored glasses…
This forgets about perpetual boom-bust cycles in the timber economy, the effects of logging on climate change, the effects of climate change on fires, the fact that clearcutting and planting create forests that are MORE susceptible to wildfire than mature and old-growth forests, and that sustained yield of timber does not mean sustained yield of water, trout, soil productivity, recreation, or sustainable GHG in the atmosphere.
I guess I have to plead ignorance regarding the relationship between logging and the weather. I do agree that some plantations are more of a wildfire risk than the forested area they replaced, but also a problem that could be readily resolved if there was interest. It’s interesting how you seem to lump a type of timber management philosophy in with water, the air, dirt, recreation, and trout! You are anonymous for reasons we could debate, but my best guess is you are an active member of an environmental organization or work for a government agency? Still a student? And yes, I am an optimist. Probably genetic.
Good Afternoon Bob—
And greeting from Curry County Oregon where for 50 years our forests and our citizens been a petrie dish for the horribly misguided experiments of the USFS. With their computers and their models, bless their hearts……
I’ve read your piece a couple of times now and still like it.
Your responses to comments contain a couple of real zinger-ideas that, while correct, put you at the fringe of this discussion in our current culture and society.
You note in a couple of responses that climate change is not a “thing” and of course that is correct. (Though I have to admit I do use it as an excuse for my arthritis.)
You also note correctly that what we’re facing are not “complex problems”. Or in my words, how difficult is it to extinguish a fire anyway? Mankind has been doing it successfully on this planet for centuries, and if there is life on Mars, probably there too. It’s not rocket surgery.
Now if I had arsonist tendencies (this sarcasm is sarcasm) I would concoct what would be a brilliant plan, very palatable to the masses.
While I would never pursue extinguishing fires (that “extinguishing” word would not be in my vocabulary) I would loudly and consistently promote the idea that “we’re going to work very hard to suppress this fire”. But, if things got really dicey I’d up the volume and proclaim that now we must pull out all the stops and now it’s a “full suppression fire”.
After all, proclamations like these from experts from far off places tend to make most people feel safe and secure.
From there, as the fire expanded, we’d go to the “super full suppression” fire response and finally if the fire continued to grow (it would), to the “ultra super full suppression” fire response.
Words, expressions like these spoken by experts tend to be believed quite readily.
End sarcasm.
To sum up, simply extinguish all fires immediately. What us commoners intuitively know is that when that is done, all the other problems go away.
“Unforeseen weather conditions” is always an excellent excuse, when a fire blows up and blasts through your ‘big box’.
Thanks Cam: I appreciate the feedback and got a good laugh when you said you “still liked” my post even after re-reading it! So far as my “zinger” responses putting my perspective on the “fringe” — that’s definitely an improvement from my former position on the outside of “today’s culture,” but fringe is as close as I probably want to get at this point. Every year I try to warn people about the threats of Global Warming causing skin cancers, dry creeks, and major animal (including human) migrations, but summer still comes anyway.
Just to be clear, you’re agreeing with Cam’s statement that “climate change is not a “thing”.” It looks to me like you’re STILL “outside of ‘today’s culture'” (AKA “best available science”). Some might even call this “denial.”
Hi Jon: Back to your old “denier” name-calling nonsense again? You do sign your name and do make a lot of excellent posts regarding legal issues, but your juvenile name-calling and snarky insults got old a long time ago and only hurt your credibility as a serious adult. My advice is to give it a rest and maybe take up a hobby or something to fill those empty hours. I have been very clear — and written extensively — on my thoughts regarding the Global Warming racket for more than 30 years. You could look it up. Or continue to post petty snide comments and think you’re being clever.