Top Line: Like bankruptcy, the death of the Northwest Forest Plan has proceeded slowly and might end quickly.
Figure 1. An old-growth forest of Douglas-fir and western redcedar. Source: Sandy Lonsdale (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness).
Note: I wrote the following without considering President Trump’s recent executive order pertaining to federal forestlands. I didn’t want the Trumpian chaos to interfere with an examination of the demise of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), which was under way well before Trump 2.0. Fear not, I will examine what the second reign of Donald John Trump might mean for federal public forestlands in the next The Wildlife News post.
When is the Northwest Forest Plan no longer the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)? After the Forest Service has removed the skeleton, meat, and blood, leaving only the dermis. Any resemblance the proposed NWFP bears to the original NWFP is only skin deep.
The Northwest Forest Plan is likely a dead plan walking. The Forest Service began its long campaign to emasculate the NWFP as soon as President Clinton left office. The unraveling began during and was aided by the presidency of George W. Bush. The campaign continued unabated under and was abetted by the presidencies of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.
See Public Lands Blog posts: “The Unmaking of the Northwest Forest Plan, Part 1: Out with Enforceable Substance and in with Performative Process” and “The Unmaking of the Northwest Forest Plan, Part 2: Remaking It for the Next Quarter Century”
While the conservation community should resist the demise of the NWFP, we must and can pivot to something better (more on that later).
Map 1. The national forests within the Northwest Forest Plan. Source: Forest Service.
Some Background on the NWFP
Any bureaucracy loathes having its discretion limited. Since the end of World War II, the Forest Service—along with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—had been abusing the discretion granted to it by Congress in managing federal forestlands. At peak carnage in 1989, the Forest Service and the BLM were clear-cutting three square miles of old-growth forest on federal public lands in Oregon each week (see Chart 1). In 1994, President Clinton directed these agencies to adopt a conservation strategy, the Northwest Forest Plan. As a bureaucracy, the Forest Service has hated the NWFP ever since it was imposed upon it. So did the BLM (the agency abandoned the NWFP in 2016).
Chart 1. Federal logging levels by state on national forests in the NWFP area, 1985–2022. This graph doesn’t include the ~1,000 MMBF (aka billion board feet) peak of logging of BLM forestlands annually in Oregon ca. 1989. Source: Forest Service.
The NWFP allocated the 24 million acres of primarily Forest Service and BLM forested holdings in the Northwest to late-successional reserves (LSRs, 6.5 million acres), “managed” LSRs (0.1 million acres), “matrix” or free-fire logging areas (3.28 million acres), riparian reserves (RRs), stream buffers within “matrix” areas (2.1 million acres), and adaptive management areas (AMAs, 1.5 million acres).
Figure 2. This Douglas-fir is perhaps a thousand years old. The only way to know for sure is to cut it down and count the rings. Counts on nearby stumps showed more than six hundred rings on trees that were three feet in diameter at their base. Source: Umpqua Watersheds (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness).
Oregon Wild, Bird Alliance of Oregon, Cascadia Wildlands, and WildEarth Guardians summarized the NWFP and its effects as follows in their initial analysis of the Forest Service’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Northwest Forest Plan amendment:
The NWFP required agencies to shift their focus from logging the last remaining stands of mature and old-growth (80+ year old) forests to seeking to recover more older forest habitat. This first-of-its-kind ecosystem recovery plan became a world-wide model for habitat and wildlife protection, and it has succeeded in reversing the decline of mature and old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. These recovering forests have been a lifeline for imperiled fish and wildlife, safeguarded clean water, and provided an enormous unforeseen benefit for the climate by pulling vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and safely storing it in their trunks, roots, and forest soils.
These four organizations (hereafter “the generally good guys”)—along with Earthjustice—are the most likely to sue the Forest Service for gutting the Northwest Forest Plan. Unfortunately, some other “conservation” organizations have taken a more favorable posture on the proposed amendment to the NWFP (think Stockholm syndrome).
Figure 3. Old-growth Port Orford cedar. Source: Steve Miller (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness)
What Is Being Proposed in the NWFP Amendment DEIS?
In their analysis, the generally good guys characterize as follows the four alternatives proposed in the Forest Service’s DEIS for the Northwest Forest Plan amendment (emphases in original):
• Alternative A: No Action—retains current Northwest Forest Plan protections
• Alternative B: Proposed Action—redefines “mature” and “old-growth,” eliminates protections for unlogged mature forests in LSRs, increases clearcutting of mature and old-growth forests in Matrix lands, and increases logging in dry forests that will degrade habitat, emit greenhouse gases, and potentially increase fire hazard
• Alternative C: More emphasis on natural processes, including wildland fire, while still increasing logging through loosened protections in LSRs and new definitions for mature and old growth
• Alternative D: Even greater flexibility and “predictability of timber outputs” than Alternative B, and would eliminate rare species survey requirements before logging in certain areas
The generally good guys conclude that Alternatives B, C, and D “would weaken existing protections and increase logging on our national forests to varying degrees.”
Figure 4. The marbled murrelet nests exclusively in old-growth trees hundreds of feet above the ground and up to 30 miles from the ocean. The bird also can dive up to 164 feet deep in the ocean seeking fish to bring home to feed the offspring. Source: Gary Braasch (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness).
In their analysis, the generally good guys compare the Forest Service’s proposed action (Alternative B) with the current NWFP (Alternative A) as follows (emphases in original):
Late-Successional Reserves
• Forest stands would now be considered “young” even if they are 120 years old—a major change from the previous NWFP definition of “mature” stands as 80 years old.
• Logging would now be allowed in moist “young” stands up to 120 years old in LSRs (previously restricted to stands up to 80 years old). This would open up 824,000 acres to logging—the equivalent of nearly eight Mt. Jefferson Wilderness areas.
• Rather than continue to prohibit logging activities in moist LSRs unless they restore or accelerate late-successional or old-growth conditions to benefit ESA-listed species, new exceptions would be added to allow logging to “restore habitat for other species that depend upon younger stands” and to “achieve other desired conditions,” all but eliminating the core purpose of LSRs.
• Salvage logging would be allowed in moist LSRs in certain situations, including “along existing system roads”—essentially converting burned old-growth areas into sterile tree farms.
Matrix Lands
• In moist Matrix lands, there would be no genuine restrictions on logging in stands established after 1905 (up to 120 years old), and the Forest Service would aim to log 81,000 acres a decade “to bolster timber production”—that’s 1.3 times the size of the Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness area.
• In moist Matrix stands established between 1825 and 1905 (up to 200 years old), logging would be allowed for multiple reasons at the Forest Service’s discretion, including a broad exception for “reducing the risk of fire.”
• This shift away from stand age considerations to stand establishment dates essentially means these old stands will never age into protection, severely limiting if not outright curtailing recruitment of additional old growth—especially when combined with new logging loopholes in LSRs.
Figure 5. Ponderosa pine is a “dry” forest type. Source: Elizabeth Feryl (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness).
Dry Forests
• The Forest Service aims to log at least one third of dry forest stands across all land use allocations (LSRs and Matrix) over 15 years—964,000 acres—almost as many acres as the entire Umpqua National Forest.
• Despite providing these acreage figures, the DEIS fails to provide any maps delineating where dry forests exist within the planning area, leaving undefined discretion to local managers directed to meet timber quotas.
• Within dry stands, trees older than 150 years receive nominal protection from logging, but the Forest Service includes broad exceptions for “restoration” and “to reduce wildfire risk.”
Doubling Logging from 2023 Levels
• According to the DEIS, the Forest Service logged approximately 504 million board feet of timber from the 17 National Forests within the NWFP area in 2023. Under Alternatives B and D, the Forest Service aims to log over twice that amount annually, over one billion board feet.
• Notably, the original average annual timber output estimate from the NWFP (1.1 billion board feet) included the 2.6 million acres of Western Oregon BLM lands that typically produce ~200 million board feet but are no longer part of the NWFP. The Forest Service now proposes to log much more on less public lands, meaning the adverse impacts will be even more concentrated.
• In total, the Forest Service aims to “treat” 2.65 million acres per decade across all land use allocations—the equivalent of two and a half Mt. Hood National Forests—with all the attendant adverse impacts from associated road-building and heavy machinery use.
Lack of Species Protections
• The amendment process has already faced criticism for failing to adhere to the core biodiversity conservation purpose of the Northwest Forest Plan. And now, despite rolling back habitat protections and ramping up logging, the DEIS alarmingly asserts the proposed amendment would not substantially lessen protections for species—the original purpose of the NWFP—and does not include species-specific plan components to ensure ESA-listed species’ recovery or other native species’ viability throughout the planning area.
Figure 6. Old-growth forests keep massive amounts of carbon safely out of the atmosphere. Source: Gary Braasch (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness).
Big Timber’s bitch all along has been that the NWFP never resulted in their cutting a billion board feet annually. They say it was “promised” in the NWFP. In fact, it was an aspiration marketed as the “probable sale quantity,” not a requirement. (See Appendix F of my paper “Ecologically Appropriate Restoration Thinning in the Northwest Forest Plan Area,” where you will read that “even as scientists were writing the Northwest Forest Plan, most realized that the protection measures needed to ensure species viability made logging a billion board feet impossible.”) Now Big Timber is on the road to getting its way.
Revisioning the NWFP for Changing Times
As it’s been three decades, the NWFP could be updated—but a revision to a plan that’s better, not an amendment that’s worse. Many things have changed since 1994.
• In 1994, climate disruption was only beginning to reach the public’s consciousness. The importance of mature and old-growth forests for storing and sequestering carbon was only beginning to be understood. It is well understood now.
• The invasive barred owl’s ability to harm spotted owls wasn’t understood back then. It is now. Finally, efforts are under way to control barred owls.
See Public Lands Blog post: “B. Owl v. N. S. Owl.”
• Tribal nations were not consulted in the preparation of the NWFP. Especially under the Biden administration, tribal consultation has increased significantly.
• Fire in forests is more of an issue now, as climate change is making fires more intense. The Forest Service has a three-pronged approach to forests susceptible to burning: (1) log them before they burn, (2) log them while they burn, and (3) log them after they burn. The proposed NWFP amendment exalts reducing fire over all other goals, but fire is either the continuation or rebirth of a forest, and the only way to prevent forest fires is to prevent forests.
See Public Lands Blog posts:
“The Futility of ‘Fighting’ Wildfire: Elemental—A Film Review”
“Speaking Truth to the Fire-Industrial Complex”
“More Moral Hazard Than Fire Hazard: The Responsibility of Homeowners in the WUI”
Figure 7. An old-growth Sitka spruce. Source: Oregon Wild (first appeared in Oregon Wild: Endangered Forest Wilderness).
What You Can Do
Don’t even bother sending comments to the Forest Service, which has a March 17, 2025, deadline (coincidentally, today) to receive the comments. The agency is on a mission to get its discretion back and increase its budget through more logging (and fire “fighting”). Like my dog when it sees a squirrel, the Forest Service bureaucracy is focused solely on its goal, and it is deaf to anything anyone says to the contrary.
You need to do three things:
1. Litigation. Send a contribution earmarked for “Northwest Forest Plan litigation” to Earthjustice, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Bird Alliance of Oregon, WildEarth Guardians, and/or EPIC.
2. Election. Include a note with your contribution asking the organization what it will be doing for the 2026 midterm elections. If you hear back that due to its tax status it cannot engage in elections but a companion entity can, send that companion entity a check as well. If they don’t have a companion entity, then ask for your money back and send it to an organization that can engage in elections.
See Public Lands Blog post: “WTF Now?”
3. Legislation. Contact your two US senators and your representative in the US House and let them know it’s time for them to step up and save the nation’s remaining mature and old-growth forests for the benefit of this and future generations. You can find your senators and your congressperson here. After going to the website of each, click on “Contact.”
For More Information
Battaglia, Roman. March 7, 2025. “Northwest Forest Plan Has Left a Lasting Legacy, Despite Falling Short.” JPR: Jefferson Public Radio.
Johnson, K. Norman, Jerry F. Franklin, and Gordon H. Reeves. 2023. The Making of the Northwest Forest Plan: The Wild Science of Saving Old Growth Ecosystems. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
USDA Forest Service. Northwest Forest Plan Amendment Documents.
Bottom Line: These are the times that try our souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of our forests; but those who stand by the forests now, deserve the love and thanks of trees and wildlife.
Leave a Reply