File this under “I think we knew this based on observations.” I was on a field trip on the Wenatchee when the same observations and predictions were made about owls, owl habitat and wildfire.. oh.. twenty or more years ago (I think it was a field trip associated with the 1999 SAF Convention in Portland, Oregon). Looking back, we can ask a meta-question- why does it take so long for practitioner knowledge to be incorporated into policy? What is the role of academic, government and political institutions in making sure that that pipeline is working in both directions.. scientist to practitioner and practitioner to scientist?
At the same time, better late than never.
The Northwest Forest Plan, adopted in 1994, helped quell mounting tensions between timber companies and environmentalists. It protected large swaths of old-growth forest in Washington, Oregon and California to preserve habitat for endangered species, including the Northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet.
While the plan is largely considered a success, researchers and land managers have begun to question whether it adequately protects forests threatened by climate change. Wildfires of increasing strength and severity sweep through Northwest forests every year, both on the east side of the mountains where conditions are drier and in wet mossy western forests.
**********
What were some of the key takeaways from the study?
A broad theme is that these are dynamic landscapes and they need to be managed as such. We looked at the environmental factors driving burn severity for 2,200 different wildfires and studied the forest patterns resulting from those events. The effects of wildfire in some areas were surprising. For example, we found that high severity fire affected around 60% of pine-oak woodlands in federally protected reserves throughout the eastern Cascades and Klamath regions. These forests are adapted to frequent, low intensity fires. We know that they need fire, but the severity of these fires reflects a long history of fire exclusion—or lack of fire—across the landscape.
What do you mean by a lack of fire? Aren’t we supposed to stop wildfires?
Because enacting changes to management strategies has been difficult to do in practice, parts of the Northwest Forest Plan inadvertently reinforced the idea of preserving a static forest condition. This approach is analogous to drawing a boundary around a forest to prevent disturbance. It is rooted in conservation ideas from the early and mid-20th century, but we know that disturbances—especially fire—are important for forests. So, you get this kind of fire paradox where many of these forests need fire, but the longer they go without it the more devastating it ultimately becomes.
We wonder what it becomes.. but maybe that was edited out?
These frequent-fire forests—like pine-oak woodlands and dry mixed conifer forests—can ultimately fare better in a warmer climate, so it is really alarming to see how much dry forest cover we are losing to fire under current management strategies.
**********
When you manage land with a focus on a single issue, or a limited set of issues, you’re going to run into problems. The plan accounted for the effects of wildfire as it was in 1994, but did not anticipate how wildfire would shift with climate change. We don’t necessarily need to know exactly what the landscape will look like in the future, but we need policies and management strategies that will allow us to adapt to changing and novel conditions.
******
Actually people were saying that at the time, with those wildfire conditions, but if climate change gives us a reason to switch, so be it. Better late than never.
Sharon, do you have a link to the study?
Got it– the link was, of course, in the article Nick had in his newsletter:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112725007704?via%3Dihub
Sorry, I thought I had linked to it. I was out with my iphone where currently I can approve comments but not reply :(.
News Flash: We knew these forests were dynamic back in 1994, when the plan was adopted, and the plan accomodates that in various ways, such as: large reserves where disturbance is unlikely to wipeout the whole thing, and natural recovery process can be allowed tooperate, and efforts to protect late successional forests from some natural distrubances because such forests are so rare).
Very importantly, evidence that wildfire is having greater than expected effects, is NOT evidence that logging will solve the problem. best available science shows that logging will make a bad situation worse for late successional wildlife because:
(i) logging will degrade habitat, by reducing cover, dead wood, and microclimate buffering;
(ii) it is unlikely that logging to control fire will interact with wildfire, so lots of habitat will be degraded unnecessarily;
(iii) logging has complex effects on fire. Commercial logging in particular can make fire worse by reducing canopy cover and stimulating growth of more hazadous fuels.
From the Northwest Forest Plan ROD:
Second, sounds like you may want to watch these panel discussions! https://forestpolicypub.com/2026/01/22/science-of-fire-and-fuels-deep-dive-panel-discussions/ !
As for me, I don’t think the 1994 ROD is a fair response to current research.
“Because enacting changes to management strategies has been difficult to do in practice, parts of the Northwest Forest Plan inadvertently reinforced the idea of preserving a static forest condition. This approach is analogous to drawing a boundary around a forest to prevent disturbance. It is rooted in conservation ideas from the early and mid-20th century.”
The last sentence is misleading. The Northwest Forest Plan did not intend to completely prevent disturbance. It allows for activities intended to reduce the risk of large-scale disturbances and accelerate late-successional conditions, including thinning, fuel reduction, and restoration. The first sentence suggests, and it is my impression, that it is rooted in implementation of the plan, not the plan itself.
I think perhaps the point of the paragraph is the targeting of moving toward old growth conditions (thinking that they will stay that way). Disturbances are OK if they move toward more OG conditions, but not so much if they don’t.
And if the plan “allows for activities intended to reduce the risk of large-scale disturbances” AND “accelerate late-successional” these might not be the same thing.. as perhaps experience has shown.
The Plan provides different direction for dry east side forests than for the west side, and recognizes that some of those forests may require management that does not “accelerate” late-successional:
“In some Late-Successional Reserves in these provinces, management that goes beyond these guidelines may be considered. Levels of risk in those Late-Successional Reserves are particularly high and may require additional measures. Consequently, management activities designed to reduce risk levels are encouraged in those Late-Successional Reserves even if a portion of the activities must take place in currently late-successional habitat. While risk-reduction efforts should generally be focused on young stands, activities in older stands may be appropriate if: (1) the proposed management activities will clearly result in greater assurance of long-term maintenance of habitat, (2) the activities are clearly needed to reduce risks, and (3) the activities will not prevent the Late-Successional Reserves from playing an effective role in the objectives for which they were established.”
2nd: Hug a logger! Geesh, the hostile attitude towards an integral part of our northwest natural resource industry is disheartening. There is alignment that special places need to be preserved. National/state parks/ unique old growth groves identified on NFS/state lands, are worth keeping those horrible loggers out of! However, as the Jollie Mt fires shows, we should understand that nothing stays the same forever. What’s happened in Central WA is a tragedy. Vast landscapes nuked from catastrophic fire. Zero timber industry remains thanks to the Northwest Forest Plan. The collective we has screwed that landscape up beyond much hope of recovery. You may say it’s “natural ” but that isn’t what science says.And certainly our communities are demanding a different approach.