The federal government’s delay in updating the Northwest Forest Plan reflects the nation’s convoluted approach to land management and climate change. As The Columbian has written editorially: “The labyrinth of confusion and consternation created by federal policy continues to confound.”
Now that the plan is being reconsidered, policymakers must place renewed emphasis on addressing climate change, making forests more resilient to wildfires, economically bolstering rural counties, improving salmon runs and balancing fiscal concerns with environmental issues.
Forests have drastically changed since the Northwest Forest Plan was first adopted in 1994. At the time, President Bill Clinton directed representatives of 10 federal agencies to work with scientists in formulating a forest management plan that would be “scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally responsible.”
Whether that has been accomplished is open to debate. As The Columbian reported in 2015: “The results are mixed. The spotted owl — one of the icons of the so-called ‘timber wars’ of the early 1990s — continues to decline in both population and available habitat. The marbled murrelet has also seen its numbers decline in Washington, but remains stable in Oregon and California, according to reports. Many watersheds, meanwhile, have seen improved conditions, officials say. Timber harvests have fluctuated since their initial dive, but remain far below what’s allowed under the Northwest Forest Plan.”
Those issues remain as the Biden administration convenes a Northwest Forest Plan Advisory Committee. The 21-person panel will make recommendations to federal agencies updating the Northwest Forest Plan. The plan was supposed to be updated 15 years ago, but no action was taken until President Joe Biden issued an executive order last year.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Northwest Forest Plan covers 24.5 million acres of federally managed lands in Washington, Oregon and Northern California, including 17 national forests and six national parks. The plan contains standards and guidelines for management, along with monitoring programs.
Two primary questions should guide any recommendations: Does the plan actually stifle effective management through bureaucracy and micromanagement? And how has climate change altered the prescription for producing and protecting healthy forests?
As James Johnston, an assistant professor at Oregon State University and a member of the committee, told Oregon Capital Chronicle: “The revision is legally overdue, in addition to the broad recognition that times have changed since 1994, and that communities have changed, forests have changed and climates have changed.”
Many areas — including Skamania County — depended on the forests for their economic lifeblood. During the 1970s, as much as 399 million board feet of timber were harvested in a single year in Skamania County; by 2000, 26 million board feet were felled in the county — a decline of 93 percent. Those policies have had a dire impact on the local economy — a tale repeated in many rural areas.
Increasing harvests in a sensible fashion can improve the health and resiliency of forests while still protecting habitats and old-growth trees, which are particularly effective in trapping carbon.
Many questions will need to be addressed. But the hope is that the federal government can devise a plan that better serves our forests and the communities that depend on them.
