A Synthesis of Monitoring and 

Research Results

NORTHWEST

FOREST PLAN

THE FIRST TEN YEARS (1994–2003)

Pacifi c Northwest

Research Station DEPA RTMENTOFAGRICULT URE

Forest 

Service

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-651

October 2006
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States 

and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, 

it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing 

Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived 

from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To fi le a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Offi ce of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Technical Editors

Richard W. Haynes, Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest Research Station, 

620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; Bernard T. Bormann, Research Plant Physiologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, 

OR 97331; Danny C. Lee, Research Ecologist, formerly at USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Southwest 

Research Station, 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, CA 95521, currently at USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, P.O. Box 2680, Asheville, NC 28802; and Jon R. Martin, NWFP Interagency 

Monitoring Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Pacifi c Northwest Region, 333 SW First Ave., 

Portland, OR 97204
i

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years

(1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and

Research Results

Technical Editors

Richard W. Haynes,

Bernard T. Bormann,

Danny C. Lee,

Jon R. Martin

Published by:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-651

October 2006
ii

Abstract

Haynes, Richard W.; Bormann, Bernard T.; Lee, Danny C.; Martin, Jon R., tech. eds.

2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring

and research results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 292 p.

It has been 10 years since the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) came into being at the

direction of President Clinton. This report synthesizes the status and trends of five major

elements of the Plan: older forests, species, aquatic systems, socioeconomics, and adaptive management and monitoring. It synthesizes new science that has resulted from a

decade of research. The report also contains key management implications for federal

agencies. This report is a step in the adaptive management approach adopted by the Plan,

and there is the expectation that its findings will lead to changes in the next decade of Plan

implementation.

Although most of the monitoring has been underway for less than a decade and many

of the Plan’s outcomes are expected to evolve over decades, the monitoring is already

producing a wealth of data about the status and trends in abundance, extent, diversity, and

ecological functions of older forests, the species that depend on them, and how humans

relate to them. Conditions did change over the decade. Watershed conditions improved,

increase in acreage of late-successional old growth exceeded expectations, new species

now pose threats, and there is greater appreciation of the need to share habitat protection

among land ownerships. The Plan anticipated greater timber harvests and more treatments

to reduce fuel in fire-prone stands than have actually occurred. Monitoring showed human

communities are highly variable, and it is difficult to disentangle overall growth in

regional economies from the impacts of reduced timber harvests on federal land.

Keywords: Northwest Forest Plan, northern spotted owl, old growth, forest policy,

biodiversity.
iii

Preface

This report is one of a set of reports produced on this 10-year anniversary of the Northwest

Forest Plan (the Plan). The collection of reports attempts to answer questions about the

effectiveness of the Plan based on new monitoring and research results. The set includes a

series of status and trends reports, a synthesis of all regional monitoring and research

results, a report on interagency information management, and a summary report.

The status and trends reports focus on establishing baselines of information from 1994,

when the Plan was approved, and reporting change over the 10-year period. The status and

trends series includes reports on late-successional and old-growth forests, northern spotted

owl population and habitat, marbled murrelet population and habitat, watershed condition,

government-to-government tribal relationships, socioeconomic conditions, and monitoring

of project implementation under Plan standards and guidelines.

The synthesis report addresses questions about the effectiveness of the Plan by using

the status and trends results and new research. It focuses on the validity of the Plan assumptions, differences between expectations and what actually happened, the certainty of these

findings, and, finally, considerations for the future. The synthesis report is organized in

three parts: Part I—introduction, context, synthesis, and summary; Part II—socioeconomic

implications, older forests, species conservation, the aquatic conservation strategy, and

adaptive management and monitoring; and Part III—key management implications.

The report on interagency information management identifies issues and recommends

solutions for resolving data and mapping problems encountered during the preparation of

the set of monitoring reports. Information issues inevitably surface during analyses that

require data from multiple agencies covering large geographic areas. The goal of this set of

reports is to improve the integration and acquisition of interagency data for the next

comprehensive report.

Parts I and II of the synthesis report were written by a team assembled to review the

various information and status and trends reports. Five of the team members (Haynes,

Marcot, Raphael, Reeves, Spies) participated on various Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team (FEMAT) science teams; two worked on implementing the forest plan on

the management side (Martin, N. Molina); three (Bormann, Kiester, Martin) worked on

implementing adaptive management; and seven (Busch, Marcot, Martin, R. Molina,

Raphael, Reeves, Spies) worked on implementing various monitoring modules. Eleven of

the team members are from USDA Forest Service Research; two are from USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Region; one is from USDI Geological Survey; and one is from

USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Part III was written by a Team from the management community. Four (N. Molina,

Johnson, Cissel, Willamson) are from USDI Bureau of Land Management, and four are from

the USDA Forest Service (Hussey, Emch, Fenwood, Smith), and one (Mulder) is from the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
iv

Authors and contributors:

R. James Barbour, Research Forest Products Technologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

620 SW Main St., Suite 400

Portland, OR 97205

Bernard T. Bormann, Research Forest Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

3200 SW Jefferson Way

Corvallis, OR 97331

Martha H. Brookes, Editor (retired)

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

3200 SW Jefferson Way

Corvallis, OR 97331

David E. Busch, Senior Biologist

U.S. Geological Survey, Western Region

P.O. Box 3623

Portland, OR 97208

John Cissel, Forester

USDI Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management

333 SW First Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

Dallas Emch, Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

Willamette National Forest

211 East 7th Ave.

Eugene, OR 97440

Jim Fenwood, Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region

825 North Humboldt Ave.

Willows, CA 95988

Elisabeth Grinspoon, Social Scientist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

333 SW First Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

Richard W. Haynes, Research Forester

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

620 SW Main St., Suite 400

Portland, OR 97205
v

Tom Hussey, Forester

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

333 SW First Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

Terry Johnson, Biologist

USDI Bureau of Land Management,

333 SW First Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

A. Ross Kiester, Research Mathematical Statistician (retired)

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

1133 N Western Ave.

Wenatchee, WA 98801

Danny C. Lee, Research Ecologist

Formerly at: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station

1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, CA 95521

Currently at: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802

Bruce Marcot, Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

620 SW Main St., Suite 400

Portland, OR 97205

Jon R. Martin, NWFP Interagency Monitoring Program Manager

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

333 SW First Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

Nancy Molina, Ecologist (retired)

USDI Bureau of Land Management

333 SW First Ave.

Portland, OR 97204

Randy Molina, Research Botanist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

620 SW Main St., Suite 400

Portland, OR 97205

Barry Mulder, Wildlife Biologist (retired)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

911 NE 11th Ave

Portland, OR 97232
vi

Martin G. Raphael, Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

3625 93rd Ave., SW

Olympia, WA 98512-9193

Gordon H. Reeves, Research Fish Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

3200 SW Jefferson Way

Corvallis, OR 97331

Marie-Louise Smith, Research Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Northeast Research Station

271 Mast Road

Durham, NH 03824

Thomas A. Spies, Research Forester

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

3200 SW Jefferson Way

Corvallis, OR 97331

Rachel White, Science Writer

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station

620 SW Main St., Suite 400

Portland, OR 97205

Denis Williamson, District Manager

USDI Bureau of Land Management

1717 Fabry Road SE

Salem, OR 97306
vii

Summary

In the early 1990s, public controversy over timber harvest in old-growth forest of the

Pacific Northwest, decline of the threatened northern spotted owl (see appendix for

scientific names) and the marbled murrelet, habitat protection for Pacific salmon populations, and perceived threats to the social well-being of forest-based communities challenged federal land managers. The ensuing controversy ultimately led to a Presidential

conference in 1993 where President Clinton issued a mandate for federal land management

and regulatory agencies to work together to develop a plan for resolving the conflict

between timber and other resource values. President Clinton listed the following five

principles that he felt should guide the process (FEMAT 1993):

First, we must never forget the human and the economic dimensions of

these problems. Where sound management policies can preserve the

health of forest lands, [timber] sales should go forward. 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, as we craft a plan, we need to protect the long-term health of

our forests, our wildlife, and our waterways. They are a...gift from God;

and we hold them in trust for future generations.

Third, our efforts must be, insofar as we are wise enough to know it,

scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally responsible.

Fourth, the plan should produce a predictable and sustainable level of

timber sales and nontimber resources that will not degrade or destroy

the environment.

Fifth, to achieve these goals, we will do our best, as I said, to make the

federal government work together and work for you. We may make

mistakes but we will try to end the gridlock within the federal government, and we will insist on collaboration not confrontation.

The result was the Northwest Forest Plan that amended the planning documents for 19

national forests and 7 Bureau of Land Management districts (USDA and USDI 1994) and

that has guided federal forest management in the Northwest for the past decade. This report

is an important step in the adaptive management approach adopted as part of the Plan. It

synthesizes the status and trends of five major elements of the Plan: older forests, species,

aquatic systems, socioeconomics, and adaptive management. It also synthesizes new

science that has resulted from 10 years of research related to the Plan. We finish by addressing four interconnected questions: (1) Has the Plan resulted in changes that are consistent

with objectives identified by President Clinton? (2) Are major assumptions behind the Plan

still valid? (3) Have we advanced learning through monitoring and adaptive management?

and (4) Does the Plan provide robust direction for the future?
viii

Trends and Findings

Older Forests

The original design of the Plan attempted to develop alternatives that would create or

maintain “a connected or interactive old-growth forest ecosystem on the federal land

within the region under consideration.” There was concern that the amount of older forest

had steeply declined during the 20th century, placing associated species and desired ecosystem functions at risk of extinction. The premise of the proposed solutions was to return

the amount of older forest on federal lands to levels that were more similar to what they had

been prior to widespread logging. Possible outcomes of the Plan for older forests were

described in terms of their likelihood of returning levels of older forest to the historical

range of variation that may have occurred prior to Euro-American settlement.

After 10 years of monitoring a plan whose outcomes are expected to evolve over 100

years or more, it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological

functions of older forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total

area of late-successional and old-growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is

somewhat higher than expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was

anticipated. Research since the Plan supports the application of creative silvicultural

practices to diversify plantations and accelerate the development of some components of

old-growth forest.

The characterization of old growth used in the Plan is generally still valid; however,

researchers have become aware that the diversity and complexity of natural forests are

greater than portrayed in some of our earlier conceptual models. Old-growth forest is part

of a complex continuum of forest development in which younger stages may contain

elements of old growth, and old-growth forest may contain elements of younger forest

that arise following natural disturbances of many kinds. Given the complexity of forest

development, conserving forest biodiversity requires considering elements or structures

from all stages of stand development.

Monitoring suggests that rates of fuel treatments and restoration of structure and

disturbance regimes in fire-dependent older forest types have been considerably less than

is needed to reduce potential for losses of these forests to severe disturbance and successional change. Landscape management strategies that balance fuel reduction and shortterm maintenance of northern spotted owl habitat are needed to reduce the potential for

fires that destroy both owl habitat and large conifer trees that serve as the building blocks

of dry-forest restoration. The Plan designated areas of land (often containing the remaining

old-growth forests) as reserves, meant to conserve habitat for certain species. Reexamination of the reserve strategy of the Plan and alternatives indicates that active management

within reserves may be needed in both dry and wet forests to restore ecological diversity

and reduce potential for loss from severe fire.

The Plan recognized the ecological value of standing dead trees and downed logs in

postwildfire ecosystems and placed restrictions on salvage logging within reserves. Science
ix

that has emerged since then supports this policy. However, no new scientific information

has developed that can be used as the sole basis for setting salvage levels and still be consistent with the goals of the Plan. Some new information suggests that more dead wood be

left, but the ultimate management decision involves weighing the ecological, social, and

economic risks and tradeoffs.

The Plan focused on federal lands, which make up 41 percent of the forest land in

the Pacific Northwest, and made the assumption that federal lands would carry most of the

weight in conserving species and old-forest systems. Research conducted since the Plan

indicates that assumption is not necessarily valid and that conditions on nonfederal lands

could contribute to Plan goals or, in some cases, hinder achievement of those goals.

Monitoring trends and reevaluation of Plan assumptions do not indicate a compelling

reason for major changes to reserve boundaries in moist habitats at this time. In dry

provinces, however, there is a need to consider if new landscape management strategies

would better reduce risks of loss of older forest and owl habitat to catastrophic fire.

Given the relatively short period for monitoring and lack of reliable information about

future losses from high-severity wildfires and climate change, significant uncertainties

remain about the long-term trends in old forest, especially in the dry provinces.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy has met many of the expectations for it. The strategy

was designed to maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and

aquatic ecosystems. Its focus is habitat rather than species populations because, for

anadromous species such as salmon, ocean currents and other factors outside the control

of forest management affect their numbers. The monitoring program suggests that the

conditions of many watersheds had improved over the past decade. Most watersheds (161

of those 250 monitored) showed small positive changes in watershed condition scores.

These results should be viewed cautiously as they were not based on a complete set of

parameters, and the program has not completed a full cycle of sampling. Main determinates

of an improved watershed condition were an increase in the number of large trees in

riparian areas and a decrease in clearcut harvesting in riparian zones. Trends will continue

to improve if the strategy continues to be implemented in its current form.

Scientific studies completed after the Plan was implemented continue to support the

framework and assumptions of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, particularly the ecological importance of smaller, headwater streams and the retention of streamside forests

protected in buffers. Also, a growing body of science about the dynamics of aquatic and

riparian ecosystems could provide a foundation for developing new management approaches and policies. Scientifically based tools for aiding watershed analysis are also

available and could be used by the various agencies.

A continuing challenge is the relation among spatial scales considered at the project

level, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, and the Plan. The strategy changed the focus of

land management agencies from small spatial scales, such as stands and small watersheds,
x

to larger watersheds and complex landscapes. This latter scale sets the context for adjusting

actions at the project scale. The implications of introducing flexibility at the site level

have not been fully recognized or appreciated by the land management or regulatory

agencies and have created confusion with the public and policymakers.

Conservation of Species

Owls and Murrelets—

The reserve system was created to conserve habitat for the northern spotted owl and

marbled murrelet. Ten years is a short time relative to the time needed for habitat recovery

from past disturbance, and populations may not show increases in response to habitat

restoration until more time has elapsed.

Populations of the northern spotted owl are declining in the northern parts of the

subspecies range; reasons are unclear, but lingering effects of past harvest and synergistic

interactions of weather, habitat, and displacement by the barred owl are likely causes.

Based on 4 years of monitoring, marbled murrelet populations seem stable, but more years

of survey are needed to be confident in estimated trends. Populations of wideranging

species like the owl and murrelet respond to the cumulative effects of many interacting

factors, only some of which are under the direct influence of the Plan. Therefore, observed

short-term population trends of these species may or may not be due to land management

decisions under the Plan. The system of reserves, however, has clearly been successful in

conserving nesting habitat, and restoration of unsuitable habitat within reserves seems

likely.

Losses of habitat to fire and logging on federal lands have been lower than expected.

Substantial area of habitat for owls and murrelets occur on nonfederal lands; rate of

loss owing to logging on those lands has been greater than on federal lands and those

losses will likely continue.

Other facets of biodiversity—

The Plan called for assessing other species associated with older forest as part of a

program to monitor biodiversity of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems.

One aspect of this was embodied in the Survey and Manage program that focused on

inventory of rare and little-known species. Other elements of biodiversity have not been

monitored.

The assumption that the Plan (particularly the reserve system) provided for old-growthassociated species—remains untested. However, as over 90 percent of federal land is in

reserve status, it is highly likely that many of these species are protected. The application

of coarse-filter approaches to management, namely the land management allocations and

mitigations under the Plan, provides some protection for rare and little-known survey and

manage and old-growth-associated species, but there remains uncertainty as to their

persistence and viability.
xi

 After 10 years of surveys, most Survey and Manage species were found to be rare (42

percent are known from 10 or fewer sites) with many sites outside of reserve land allocations. Maintaining persistence of extremely rare species may require continuing fine-filter

conservation approaches, including protection of known sites. The experience with the

Survey and Manage species has led to changes in gauging conservation requirements for

selected species. It also has led to further research questions on basic distribution, trends,

and ecology for many species.

Socioeconomic Conditions

The political compromise leading to the Plan linked timber production on federal lands

with jobs and community well-being. Since implementing the Plan, the debate has been

generalized to imply that increased environmental protection threatens jobs and, therefore,

community stability. These issues framed the socioeconomic monitoring questions.

The first two questions address the effectiveness of a predictable and sustainable

supply of goods and recreation opportunities to maintain the stability of local and regional

economies. In general, the Plan enabled federal agencies to resume activities. In terms of

output levels, timber sale expectations were not met, grazing and mineral activity declined,

and recreation opportunities remained relatively constant. Changes took place in all of the

communities across the region, and although it is difficult to disentangle changes caused

by the Plan from other changes, there are individuals who still express a sense of lost social

and economic opportunities from the reductions in federal resource flows.

The third question focused on the effects of mitigation activities where federal

agencies working with state agencies and community groups attempted to minimize

adverse impacts on jobs by assisting with economic development and diversification

opportunities in those rural communities most affected by the cutbacks in federal timber

sales. The results of these efforts were mixed; overall growth in regional economies

reduced the impacts of reduction in federal timber flow, and the economic adjustment

initiative provided less help to displaced workers than expected.

The monitoring results for the fourth question, based on the President’s principle of

protecting broad environmental values for future generations, are mixed. Old-growthrelated species and many of the uses and values that urban people associate with forests

were protected. The uses and values that rural people associate with forests were not

protected to the same extent. Old-growth trees or stands were not protected outside of latesuccessional or riparian reserves, and regions outside the Pacific Northwest bore the brunt

of increased harvests to offset harvest reductions in the Northwest.

The Plan did engender considerable new collaboration between and among the federal

agencies. It established overarching institutions like the Regional Ecosystem Office to

coordinate activities among federal agencies. The Plan also relied on public engagement

in new forums, such as the regional and provincial advisory committees, to deliver benefits

to communities.
xii

In the last decade, societal concerns about forest management have broadened. Concerns used to focus on species conservation; now the emphasis is on achieving sustainable

forests across all forest lands. Social acceptance of forest management has also shifted, suggesting the importance of building and maintaining trust with citizens. Concern about

community dependency has shifted to concern about community adaptability. The Plan

has also demonstrated the importance of strengthening governance when implementing

broad-scale forest management that crosses multiple land ownerships and management

agencies.

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management was considered the cornerstone of the Plan strategy. Because of

the known uncertainties—and the simple fact that Plan approaches had never been tried

before—adaptive management was recognized as the mechanism to alter Plan direction

as more was learned. The Plan directed managers to experiment, monitor, and interpret as

activities were applied both inside and outside adaptive management areas—and to do this

as a basis for changing the Plan in the future.

The implementation of adaptive management, however, has proceeded in fits and

starts. This report represents one step in a successful approach to adaptive management. We

have summarized the results of 10 years of monitoring, and there is the expectation that the

management implications of this will lead to changes in Plan implementation. There have

been difficulties, however. The first difficulty was the lack of a single definition of adaptive

management. A passive form of adaptive management was most commonly used in the

Plan; a single approach was chosen (for example, on the reserves, the preserve and protect

tenets of conventional conservation biology were used) and then regional monitoring

became the primary feedback and learning mechanism. Management experiments were

limited to small, tightly controlled areas and seldom included participation by the regulatory agencies.

Expectations for a more active form, advocated by many researchers, were not

achieved except for a few landscape areas. In retrospect, the regulatory agencies could

have been more thoughtfully engaged in the learning efforts. Successful implementation

of adaptive management remains rare, and many of the obstacles to implementation that

we observed with the Plan are shared elsewhere. We see four main contributing factors:

1. Management latitude on adaptive management areas was limited.

2. Some people saw adaptive management only as a public participation process to

test collaborative goals that were included in the Plan.

3. Precaution trumped adaptation. Concerns with avoiding risk and uncertainty

suppressed the experimental policies and actions needed to increase

understanding and reduce uncertainty.
xiii

4. Regardless of good intentions, sufficient resources were not available to

implement adaptive management as envisioned by FEMAT scientists or by the

implementation team.

Successful examples of adaptive management occurred both in adaptive management

areas as well as outside of them. Most evolved from successful researcher-manager partnerships, and some involved areas with a history of collaboration. These successes demonstrate that adaptive management is possible and suggest models for future consideration.

This report itself is an important step in the adaptive management approach adopted

by the Plan. Even though most of the monitoring has been underway for less than a decade

and many of its outcomes are expected to evolve over decades, the monitoring is already

producing a wealth of data about the status and trends in abundance, extent, diversity, and

ecological functions of older forest, the species that depend on it, and how humans relate

to it. There is the expectation that monitoring findings will lead to changes in Plan

implementation.

Synthesis of Monitoring Results

A critical part of adaptive management is monitoring one’s progress toward a defined goal

and then, based on these monitoring results, adjusting one’s methods, if necessary. Below is

a summarized synthesis of findings from the past 10 years of monitoring structured around

four questions.

Has the Plan Resulted in Changes That Are Consistent With Objectives

Identified by President Clinton?

The Plan’s success cannot be fully determined in 10 years, but some trends are clear. The

most notable successes are associated with protection of old-growth and riparian forests

and associated species. Harvest of old trees and harvest in riparian areas is very low relative

to historical harvest rates. Most existing old-growth stands are now protected from future

harvest, and other middle-aged stands are slowly developing late-successional characteristics such as large trees. Watershed planning has improved; we have learned much about the

distribution and habitat needs of sensitive species, and how to use silvicultural practices to

accelerate old-growth development. Watersheds are being restored, roads decommissioned,

and species protected by using site-specific, fine-filter approaches.

The Plan also fell short in some arenas, most notably in providing for a “predictable

and sustainable level of timber sales and nontimber resources” and “new economic opportunities for year-round, high-wage, high-skill jobs.” Specifically, timber harvests were lower

than expected. Timber shortfalls resulted in economic hardship for some communities

(severe in some cases), but others were able to compensate by increases in other economic

sectors or through active civic leadership. Active fuel management in the fire-prone forest

of the eastern Cascades and Klamath-Siskiyou regions has lagged behind expectations,

perhaps increasing the risk of severe fire in these regions. In the last decade, large fires in
xiv

some provinces resulted in substantial losses of old-growth forest and local increases in

watershed degradation, but disturbance rates over the Plan area were consistent with

expectations. The Plan was not entirely successful in ending “the gridlock within the

federal government,” although there have been noticeable increases in cooperation among

federal agencies and between research and management.

Are Major Assumptions Behind the Plan Still Valid?

The Plan rested on many wide-ranging assumptions that were either explicitly identified

within planning documents or implied through the direction and expectations of the Plan.

Many assumptions remain valid, such as the central assumption that old-growth forest

was limited in distribution and that the network of reserves identified in the Plan would

encompass most of the remaining old growth. Updated inventories are remarkably consistent with pre-Plan regional estimates of old-growth forest and reaffirm the assumed overlap

of old growth and the reserve network. The network of late-successional reserves and

congressionally reserved areas was also assumed to include most of the best remaining

habitat for northern spotted owls and other old-growth-dependent species. Recent estimates identify 10.4 million acres of owl habitat in these areas, representing 57 percent of

the habitat available on federal land. Improved modeling of murrelet habitat has produced

similar estimates (81 percent), suggesting that the original planners successfully identified

much of the nesting habitat on federal land.

In a similar context, key watersheds were identified as part of the aquatic conservation

strategy. From an aquatic perspective, these watersheds were assumed to be in better

condition than most. Aquatic monitoring demonstrated that key watersheds generally have

fewer roads and higher rates of road decommissioning, thus they are judged to be in better

condition. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy was designed by using science that emphasized the dynamic interconnections of riparian vegetation, large wood, sediment, and

landscape disturbance. Subsequent research since the Plan’s initiation has further strengthened the underlying assumptions of the strategy.

Monitoring results reinforce several other key assumptions of the Plan. For example,

forest inventories clearly demonstrate that trees grow quickly in the productive soils of the

Pacific Northwest. Increases in average tree diameter in undisturbed stands show that new,

old-growth forests are being naturally produced, with clear future benefit for desired

terrestrial and aquatic species. Experimental thinning in plantations demonstrated that

some old-growth features, such as large trees and spatial heterogeneity, could develop more

rapidly following treatment, whereas others simply require time.

The Plan assumed that reserve networks would be large enough to withstand large

disturbances without loss of function. Thus far, that assumption seems to hold true.

Whether fixed reserves are the best strategy for conserving biodiversity in the long term

remains an untested assumption.

Several assumptions that were incorporated in the Plan have since proven to be

unsupported or only weakly supported by new evidence or understanding. Assumptions
xv

were challenged regarding both socioeconomic and ecological relationships, with implications for both. One of the more important set of findings concerns the role of federal land.

From a socioeconomic perspective, it was assumed that timber flow from federal land was a

key determinant of community well-being. This turns out to be true in some communities,

but not in most. It seems that social values have changed since the Plan’s inception. For

example, the planned harvest of old-growth forest in matrix areas or thinning older forest

within reserves is now unacceptable to more people. This perceived shift drove changes in

Plan implementation and had some unanticipated consequences; it increased remaining

old growth and the risk of uncharacteristic fire and had positive and negative implications

for species of concern.

Experience with the Plan has led to important changes in how ecosystem processes

are viewed and the applicability of various conservation paradigms. For example, some

consider the northern spotted owl as an umbrella species; they assume that conserving the

habitat of northern spotted owls would provide for the needs of many other old-growthdependent species. Results from the Survey and Manage program confirm that a singlespecies focus is effective for only a limited number of other species, and that more holistic

strategies are required. Recognizing barred owls and West Nile virus as potential threats to

northern spotted owls demonstrates that providing habitat is a necessary but not sufficient

condition for conserving species. Researchers increasingly recognize that disturbance is an

important component of ecosystem productivity and biological diversity, and that positive

long-term benefits can arise from episodic disturbances at a variety of scales.

Have We Advanced Learning Through Monitoring and Adaptive

Management?

The monitoring program has produced a wealth of data that is starting to lead to changes in

Plan implementation. Although there were some notable successes, there also were failures

and places where improvements are needed.

In terms of new information, the major improvements in remote sensing and forest

inventories provide a detailed picture of current forest conditions throughout the Plan area

and provide the means for tracking changes in these forests. Similarly, species surveys and

population monitoring aid understanding of the distribution and habitat needs of many

species and provide indicators of change for select species. The northern spotted owl

monitoring program is one of the most intensive avian population monitoring efforts in

North America. The aquatic and riparian monitoring effort is systematically building a

database on riparian and instream conditions that is amenable to both monitoring and

exploring links among ecological drivers and responses at multiple scales. Despite its late

start, the socioeconomic program has produced findings that illuminate the context of the

Plan at a larger scale as well as its regional and local impacts.
xvi

There is room for improvement. Funding shortfalls and disagreements on design

slowed implementation of the aquatic and riparian module. The marbled murrelet monitoring effort also took time to get underway, which limits the time series available for analysis. Inconsistencies between agencies and administrative units continue to impede integration of data in multiple ways. Improved record keeping describing management activities

would enhance interpretation of outcomes and conditions.

In the last decade, many of the successful uses of experimental approaches have come

from stand-level experiments such as variable-density thinning in plantations or combinations of prescribed fire and thinning in experimental forests. Rigorous experimentation at

larger scales was rare. Our experience with adaptive management areas was generally

disappointing, as they often did not facilitate the degree of innovation and experimentation expected.

Does the Plan Provide Robust Direction for the Future?

Invariably the question arises as to whether our observations of the past decade provide

evidence that the Plan is or is not working and warrants revision. We contend that science alone cannot offer a definitive answer. Clearly, some expectations of the Plan have

been met more successfully than others, but for most, it is too early or too difficult to

judge. It ultimately depends on one’s expectations, the value assigned to the various

components and consequences, and one’s beliefs about the possible performance of

alternative strategies.

There are some areas where we can judge the progress that the Plan and federal

agencies are making to address major management challenges. Our observations here are

organized by the type of problem involved in a particular issue. That is, we look across the

various issues and assess their similarities in terms of appropriate scale, temporal tradeoffs,

or interactions between pattern and process. We conclude by examining the flexibility

within the Plan.

Scale—

One theme that we have often repeated is the importance of the hierarchical nature of

spatial and temporal scales. Every major issue has its own characteristic scale or mix of

scales. A mismatch between the scale of a management response and the characteristic

scale of the issue contributes to ineffective management. For example, as a broad-scale

plan, the Plan’s exclusive focus on federally managed lands makes it difficult to anticipate

or assess the Plan impact without looking across the whole ecosystem. Many issues

(economic effects, wide-ranging species like anadromous salmon and marbled murrelets,

invasive species and wildland fire) do not recognize administrative boundaries.

In addition to transboundary problems, there also are spatial scale issues within the

federal estate. There are the links between size and distribution of reserves and the purposes they are intended to serve, the role of complementary coarse-scale and fine-scale
xvii

filters in species conservation, and the importance of managing within watersheds by

looking across a range of stream sizes and upstream-downstream and upslope-riparian

perspectives. Mid-scale planning would help match strategic direction from the Plan to

an appropriate scale of action.

Temporal tradeoffs—

The questions of appropriate spatial scale are paralleled by issues of temporal scale. One

pervasive issue is that of the tradeoffs between short- and long-term consequences. The

issue is particularly acute when the short-term impact (or benefit) is highly probable but

small in magnitude, relative to a less likely but more substantial long-term benefit (or

impact). Temporal tradeoffs also are implicit in decisions regarding agency organization,

staffing, training, and investment in research or learning. Just as physical infrastructure

constrains management options, the same is true of social capital, agency technical

capacity, knowledge, and technology. The reductions in agency workforce have affected

the ability to plan and implement projects, and the reductions have affected rural

communities, where federal workers may be among the more highly educated and influential

residents.

Finally, there is the issue of having monitoring underway for less than a decade

whereas many of its outcomes are expected to evolve over decades. Long-term trends are

important to help us understand the variability about the status and trends in abundance,

extent, diversity, and ecological functions of older forest, the species that depend on it,

and shifts in human environmental values.

Pattern and process—

A third and perhaps most daunting set of problems in ecosystem management involve

interactions between pattern and process and how they relate to resiliency in ecosystems.

Similar to the issues of appropriate scale, pattern and process are intertwined concepts for

describing, understanding, and managing landscapes—with a temporal twist. Pattern, the

spatial arrangement of landscape components, is a consequence of process, the interactions between ecological components acting on a landscape. Just as pattern results from

processes, processes are also constrained by pattern, but more than just pattern; other

ecological components can be involved.

The challenges of understanding and managing spatial pattern and processes are

present throughout the Plan, but nowhere more critically than in designating land allocations. The Plan may represent new thinking in resource management, but its primary

mechanism is one of the oldest tricks in the book—multiple-use management by dominant

use zoning and volume regulation for harvest scheduling. At the broadest scales, the Plan

helps enable more intensive management on private timberlands while providing for

higher levels of habitat conservation on public timberlands. Because of the Plan, the

federal estate can be viewed as a collage of overlapping land-use designations, with each
xviii

designation bringing its own set of standards and guidelines, and a second set describing

which directions take priority. Thus a single landscape can have late-successional reserves,

key watersheds, riparian reserves, congressionally reserved lands, adaptive management

areas, and sundry other special-use designations. These are only the administrative boundaries. The real landscape has its own tapestry of natural features (for example, topography,

soil, rainfall, stream networks, vegetation, fauna) intersecting with anthropogenic elements

(for example, roads, farms, homes, cities, dams). The administrative designations are

expected to dictate human activities that will work with natural processes and existing

features to create a desirable landscape pattern of ecological attributes. Presumably, this

pattern will constrain natural processes so the desired landscape is sustained for humans to

enjoy.

The region affected by the Plan is an area of both remarkable similarities and pronounced differences. Traveling north to south or west to east within the Plan area reveals

remarkable gradients in climate and topography, with resultant ecological variations in

forest types and associated species. Equally remarkable are the socioeconomic differences

between large metropolitan areas like Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, and the

resource-dependent rural communities that are scattered throughout. Accommodating the

intraregional ecological and socioeconomic diversity has been a major challenge to those

designing and implementing the Plan. Opinions differ on whether or not the Plan intended

for considerable discretion to adapt standards and guidelines to provincial or site-specific

differences, but there appears to have been a reluctance or resistance to change default

standards and guidelines. The flexibility allowed and willingness to use it are essential to

matching management actions to local conditions and improving efficiency. Exercising

discretion is a standard approach to managing risk. Flexibility can also allow for greater

experimentation, and hence enhance opportunities for learning.

The Plan represents an ambitious, long-term vision for managing federal lands of the

Pacific Northwest, but it remains to be seen how well it can adapt. Carrying the vision

forward by building on the successes of the Plan and improving its shortcomings promises

to be a continuing challenge. Changes in social expectations and values, administration

policies and procedures, and other socioeconomic factors will play out in unforeseen ways.

Equally important are the inevitable ecological surprises such as large-scale disturbances,

invasive species, droughts, disease, and climate change that will strain ecosystem resiliency and potentially lead to major shifts in forest communities. In an era of declining

federal funding and personnel, management agencies will be further challenged to improve

partnerships and collaboration in order to leverage limited resources to meet growing

societal demands. The only prediction that we can make with certainty is that information,

knowledge, and creativity will always be essential ingredients for effective and adaptable

forest management.
xix

Acknowledgments

We thank Martha Brookes who edited many of these chapters and who challenged all of us

to express our thoughts both more clearly and concisely. We thank the many chapter

reviewers and John Laurence, Russ Graham, and Doug Ryan for their constructive comments. We thank Rhonda Mazza for her help in compiling the summary and abstract. We

thank Judy Mikowski for helping track the various chapter drafts and compiling the

complete drafts for two rounds of reviews. We thank Margaret Hamilton for her assistance

in handling administrative and financial tasks.

References

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem

management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular

pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range

of the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for

late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern

spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 74 p.
xx

Contents

Part I

1 Chapter 1: Objectives of Northwest Forest Plan Synthesis

by R. James Barbour, Richard W. Haynes, Rachel White, and Bernard T. Bormann

11 Chapter 2: Context for the Northwest Forest Plan

by R. James Barbour, Richard W. Haynes, Jon R. Martin, Danny C. Lee, Rachel

White, and Bernard T. Bormann

23 Chapter 3: Synthesis: Interpreting the Plan as More Than the Sum of Its Parts

by Bernard T. Bormann, Danny C. Lee, A. Ross Kiester, Thomas A. Spies, Richard W.

Haynes, Gordon H. Reeves, Martin G. Raphael. Jon R. Martin. Contributors: David

E. Busch, Nancy Molina, Randy Molina, Bruce G. Marcot, and Martha H. Brookes

49 Chapter 4: Progress to Date

by Danny C. Lee. Contributors: Bernard T. Bormann, Richard W. Haynes, Thomas A.

Spies, Gordon H. Reeves, Martin G. Raphael, David E. Busch, Jon R. Martin, A. Ross

Kiester, Nancy Molina, Randy Molina, and Bruce G. Marcot

Part II

59 Chapter 5: The Socioeconomic Implications of the Northwest Forest Plan

by Richard W. Haynes and Elisabeth Grinspoon

83 Chapter 6: Maintaining Old-Growth Forests

by Thomas A. Spies

117 Chapter 7: Conservation of Listed Species: the Northern Spotted Owl and

Marbled Murrelet

by Martin G. Raphael

145 Chapter 8: Conservation of Other Species Associated With Older Forest Conditions

by Bruce G. Marcot and Randy Molina

181 Chapter 9: The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan:

an Assessment After 10 Years

by Gordon H. Reeves

219 Chapter 10: Adaptive Management and Regional Monitoring

by Bernard T. Bormann, Danny C. Lee, A. Ross Kiester, David E. Busch, Jon R.

Martin, and Richard W. Haynes

Part III

243 Chapter 11: Key Management Implications of the Northwest Forest Plan

by Nancy Molina, Tom Hussey, Terry Johnson, Barry Mulder. Contributors:

John Cissel, Dallas Emch, Jim Fenwood, Marie-Louise Smith, Denis Williamson

277 Metric Equivalents

278 Glossary

292 Appendix
xxi

Part I
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

1

Chapter 1: Objectives of Northwest Forest Plan Synthesis

R. James Barbour, Richard W. Haynes, Rachel White, Bernard T. Bormann

and scientifically-based solution for forest management. It

represented a tremendous commitment of resources, and it

necessitated redirecting the regional impasse toward a

systematic compromise.

To guide the process, President Clinton listed the

following five principles, which reflected an evolving set of

core values and attitudes about how to manage the Nation’s

public lands to provide a balance of ecological and

economic goods and services (FEMAT 1993):

First, we must never forget the human and the economic dimensions of these problems. Where sound

management policies can preserve the health of

forest lands, [timber] sales should go forward.

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, as we craft a plan, we need to protect the

long-term health of our forests, our wildlife, and our

waterways. They are a...gift from God; and we hold

them in trust for future generations.

Third, our efforts must be, insofar as we are wise

enough to know it, scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally responsible.

Origins of the Northwest Forest Plan

In the early 1990s, public controversy over timber harvest

in old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, the decline of

the threatened northern spotted owl (see appendix for

scientific names), and habitat protection for Pacific salmon

populations brought the forest management community to a

crossroads. Would management of both public and private

forests continue to emphasize production of timber and

other commodities, or would public land managers focus

more strongly on environmental priorities? This dilemma

would not be the first to confound management direction

for public lands in the Western United States. Nor would it

be the first time change was controversial.

By fall 1992, injunctions by federal courts (for example, Judge Dwyer’s decision in Spring 1991)1

 on harvest

of federal timber within the range of the northern spotted

owl and marbled murrelets had thrown the region into

turmoil. Those who argued for the ecological health of

the forests were in direct opposition to those who argued

for the economic and social benefits of a thriving timber

industry. The result was a polarized impasse, and without a

basis for a legislative solution, the issue rose to the level of

Presidential politics. Shortly after taking office, President

Clinton fulfilled a campaign promise to the people of the

Pacific Northwest and called a forest conference in Portland,

Oregon, in 1993. The conference ended with President

Clinton issuing a mandate for federal land management and

regulatory agencies to work together to develop a plan for

resolving the conflict between timber and other resource

values. This would eventually lead to the creation of the

Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan), a massive and unprecedented effort to find a legally binding, socially acceptable,

1

1994. U.S. District Court. Seattle Audubon Society and

others v. John L. Evans, Washington Contract Loggers

Association and others.

Forest conference 1993.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

2

Fourth, the plan should produce a predictable and

sustainable level of timber sales and nontimber

resources that will not degrade or destroy the

environment.

Fifth, to achieve these goals, we will do our best,

as I said, to make the federal government work

together and work for you. We may make mistakes

but we will try to end the gridlock within the

federal government and we will insist on collaboration not confrontation.

What Exactly Is the Plan?

The Plan is a complex set of policies, decisions, standards,

and guidelines. Because no single source contains it

entirely, what constitutes the Plan is a source of confusion.

Following the forest conference, the White House

assembled a team to begin working on the plan envisioned

by President Clinton. The resulting Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) developed 10

management options that were translated by managers into

a supplemental environmental impact statement. In July

1993, Clinton announced the selected option (option 9),

and used it as the basis for a report titled “Forest Plan for a

Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment.” The

forest management and implementation portion of this

strategy was released as a record of decision (ROD) in 1994,

which amended the planning documents of 19 national

forests and 7 USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

districts (USDA and USDI 1994). We define this record of

decision, with its published standards and guidelines, as the

Plan. It caused sweeping changes in the management of

federal forests in northern California, western Oregon, and

western Washington. It encompasses 24 million acres of

federally managed land within the more than 50-millionacre range of the northern spotted owl. It is based on some

basic principles of conservation biology (see chapter 7),

while also recognizing that in dynamic landscapes some

active management might be necessary to achieve goals

(see chapter 6). Another important aspect of the Plan to keep

in mind is that it is not strictly a scientific plan. It also

represents a political and social compromise, and, as such, it

contains facets that do not adhere to any scientific theory.

Needless to say, the scale of the Plan presents unique

challenges in ecosystem management, adaptive management, and monitoring. What happened as the Plan was

implemented did not necessarily reflect its directives.

Thus, in the chapters that follow, we refer to what actually

happened during the implementation of the Plan.

 As stipulated by the Plan, the federal land base was

allocated among a network of connected reserves with both

terrestrial and aquatic components embedded in a matrix of

“working” forests (fig. 1-1). Management objectives differ

by land-use designation, as explained below.

Connected Reserves

With the intention of maintaining connected late-successional and old-growth ecosystems across federal lands, a

system of late-successional reserves (LSRs) and riparian

reserves was delineated. Late-successional reserves were

designed to maintain well-distributed habitat on federal

lands for the threatened marbled murrelets and northern

spotted owls. The riparian reserve network was intended to

reverse habitat degradation for at-risk fish species or stocks,

and to serve a terrestrial function by providing a system of

Humans are among the species who depend on the forest for

habitat. Each housing unit uses 6,000 to 8,000 board feet of

lumber

Richard Haynes
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

3

Figure 1-1—Land use allocations designated in the Northwest Forest Plan (Plan).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

4

old-forest structural elements to connect the LSRs.2 By

creating sufficient habitat for plant and animal species

thought to be closely associated with late-sucessional

forests, the FEMAT scientists and the managers who wrote

the ROD hoped that the Plan could avoid the need to

establish new single-species management plans as mandated by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for additional

late-succession-associated species. The design of the

connected reserve system was constrained by at least three

factors: (1) the location of the remaining pockets of oldgrowth forest, (2) the locations of “key watersheds” identified by the FEMAT aquatics team, and (3) the portion of the

landscape controlled by the federal government.

Matrix

The implementation of the Plan attempted to balance the

economic, environmental, and social challenges facing a

broad region. Socioeconomic effects were estimated for

different land management strategies and were the basis for

extensive public debates (FEMAT 1993). Matrix (all federal

land outside of reserves and withdrawn areas) was a key

feature in addressing the economic hardship faced by

workers, businesses, tribes, and communities affected by

reductions in federal timber harvests. Land designated as

matrix was envisioned as the source of commodities, particularly timber, promised under the Plan. At the time the

Plan was instituted, the timber industry provided the only

year-round employment in many rural communities. A

substantial number of the mills in those communities

depended on timber from federal lands, and most rural

counties within the Plan area relied on payments in lieu

of taxes from the federal government that were based on

timber receipts. Ecologically, matrix would provide earlyand mid-seral habitats that would become scarce within the

reserves. Matrix was also intended to provide forested cover

between the late-successional and riparian reserve networks.

2

 This system was influenced by the work of Harris (1984)

who applied island biogeography theory to develop a

management scheme that would link preserves in an

archipelago of habitat islands allowing for the movement

of wildlife among them.

Adaptive Management Areas

Because the Plan was designed as a dynamic plan that

would change as new knowledge came to light, adaptive

management areas (AMAs) were created as places where

new ideas and concepts for management could be tested.

The Plan’s emphasis on managing ecosystems, linking

scales, monitoring, and adaptive management make it

unique. At the time it was established, it was probably the

only large-scale plan that included all of these concepts.

Inclusion of learning opportunities as an integral part of the

Plan recognizes the limits of scientific understanding and

management experience in manipulating forest ecosystems.

In theory, it provides a way to confront uncertainty and

risk—ultimately improving the quality of natural resource

decisions by combining trials of new ideas with monitoring,

then allowing for change where necessary.

One of the innovative aspects of the adaptive management system was that it encouraged a localized, individualistic approach—as opposed to uniform, “top-down”

guidance. Intended to allow managers flexibility and

opportunity to adapt practices to local circumstances, this

approach may have led instead to some of the implementation difficulties that would plague the AMAs in the coming

decade. Rather than embracing this “freedom,” some

managers may have interpreted the approach as a lack of

organizational support (Stankey and Shindler 1997).

Without clear expectations as guidance, some AMA

programs suffered from neglect.

The Inner Workings of the Plan:

Monitoring

This report focuses primarily on monitoring. Monitoring is

required by the ROD (USDA and USDI 1994), and adaptive

management is absolutely dependent on it. It is also mandated under applicable laws and regulations (for example

National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA], Federal

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 [FLPMA], and

the Endangered Species Act of 1973). Furthermore, Judge

William L. Dwyer (see footnote 1) stated, “Monitoring is

central to the plan’s [Northwest Forest Plan] validity. If it is

not funded, or done for any reason, the plan will have to be

reconsidered.”
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

5

The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring3

 program for the Plan was initially approved by the

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) in

1995. Because the Plan did not describe how monitoring

should be done, it took several years and many participants

to finally publish a monitoring framework (Mulder and

others 1999), which was approved by the RIEC in 2001.

The objectives of this monitoring framework are to:

“Evaluate the success of the Northwest Forest Plan

in achieving the objectives on federal lands of:

a. Conserving late-successional habitat and

related species.

b. Improving watershed condition.

c. Providing resource production and assistance

to rural economies and communities.”

Federal agencies assigned specific resources to be

monitored, to gauge whether these objectives were being

met (Mulder and others 1999). Implementation monitoring

by Provincial Advisory Committees began in 1996.

Northern spotted owl population monitoring, which began

well before the Plan, was adopted as a component of the

overall monitoring module (Lint and others 1999). Monitoring protocols for marbled murrelets (Madsen and others

1999), late-successional old-growth (Hemstrom and others

1998), watershed condition (chapter 9), and tribal consultation (Crespin 2004) have been approved and implemented.

Methodology for socioeconomic monitoring, possibly the

most challenging of all the monitoring activities, continues

to be tested and evaluated (Charnley and others 2006,

Sommers 2001, Sommers and others 2002). Methods for

monitoring biological diversity and methods for validation

monitoring have not been established.

3

 The Plan recognizes three distinct types of monitoring:

(1) implementation monitoring, which is used to verify that

mandated or agreed-upon activities actually take place; (2)

effectiveness monitoring, which is used to establish that

mandated or agreed-upon activities actually accomplish

the desired goal; and (3) validation monitoring, which

evaluates alternative ways (perhaps more efficient ways)

to accomplish desired goals.

Objectives of the 10-Year Synthesis

The purpose of this document is to review the first 10 years

of the Plan and reflect on what has been learned—from

monitoring and research—to inform future management

directions for federal forest lands in the Pacific Northwest

and northern California.4 This report takes the notable step

of initializing the closing of the adaptive management

loop—completing a cycle of planning, acting, monitoring,

evaluating as a basis for subsequent planning, and modifying implementation as appropriate. Such a closure has

rarely been accomplished before, at least on a regional

scale. Authors of the various chapters will point out what

worked and what did not, identify what has changed over

the Plan’s first decade, and discuss how new information or

unexpected events might influence the future functioning

of the Plan.

In focusing on how well expectations of the Plan were

met, we recognize that expectations are based on values,

and that societal perspectives shift and flow. Natural

4

 This is not the first time we have attempted to synthesize

the science aspects of the Plan. Haynes and Perez (2001)

summarized what was learned, what were the new insights,

and how these insights affected the direction of Plan-related

research.

Wildlife viewing is one of the most rapidly growing recreation

activities, and development of sites offers an opportunity for

agencies to interact with the public.

Judy Mikowski
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

6

resources are human conceptions, and complex shifting

values surrounding these constructs (often oversimplified

into polarities like “owls versus jobs” or “economy versus

ecology”) are eventually reflected in natural resource

policy (Clark and others 1993). As we review the Plan, we

attempt to remain as objective as possible by highlighting

the perspectives and worldviews that framed its creation

and implementation.

Although President Clinton outlined an array of

societal, ecological, and organizational principles to direct

FEMAT, researchers were instructed to consider ecological

values first, before other societal values (FEMAT 1993).

This ecological-values-first approach was a policy decision,

not a science one, and reflects the fact that forest management is inherently a political undertaking (Clark and others

1993). Meanwhile, perspectives have continued to evolve.

For example, international agreements on sustainable

development now focus on balancing ecological and social

values. Other regional assessments have also adopted a

codominant, multiple-use perspective (Quigley and others

1996). In general, we interpret Plan performance by using

the ecological-values-first perspective.

We begin convinced that 10 years is not enough time

to answer many of the relevant ecological questions. The

ecological processes the Plan was intended to influence or

protect play out over centuries and millennia. Even so, after

10 years we can discern whether some of these processes

appear to be on the right track or are spinning off on

unanticipated trajectories, although any conclusions are

only provisional. Such inferences can only be made by

using a combination of empirical data—where available—

and the collective knowledge and experience of scientists

and resource managers familiar with ecosystems covered

by the Plan. For nonecological issues, sufficient time has

passed to determine whether some of the principles President Clinton spoke of at the Portland forest conference in

1993 have been followed. For example, we can evaluate

how the Plan has influenced social systems, and assess

whether this influence matters to economic conditions in

the region. We can speak to the success of establishing

monitoring programs. We can also determine if federal

agencies really work more closely together then they did in

the 1980s. Finally, we can discuss the success of the

adaptive management process.

Uncertainty and Complexity

Two themes have evolved that will reappear throughout this

report, one involving the complexities of scale, and one

involving uncertainty. The concept of scale comes into play

in both a spatial and a temporal context. Spatially, we think

of scaling as the way vegetative structures and patterns are

arrayed across the landscape from very small patches (less

than an acre) to large blocks that could conceivably cover

whole watersheds. Temporally, processes like fire could

occur over a few hours or days, whereas development of

old-growth structures could take a century or more. Dealing

with scale becomes quite difficult when contemplating

multiple ecological and social values that occur over different spatial elements and temporal frames. Integration of

planning and implementation of management across federal

agencies (each with a history of acting independently on

site-specific activities) further complicates the issue.

We also highlight uncertainties that influence how we

interpret what is and what is not known. We discuss the

variability, adaptability, and interdependency of natural

and social systems as the basis for uncertainty, and contemplate what managers might consider in response. Specifically, our experience has emphasized the importance of

recognizing there is a continuum of forest conditions and

stages. For example, during the past decade we have seen

rapid evolution among stakeholder groups’ different definitions for old-growth to the point that contemporary definitions (stands of natural origin greater than 100 or 120 years)

have little scientific basis. We have seen similar ambiguity

in the definitions and specifications of the term “reserve.”

The Plan calls for a system of connected reserves; however,

in developing this approach, insufficient attention was

given to both the implications of a highly dynamic landscape and what flexibility could be considered after broadscale disturbances. For example, the framers of the Plan

anticipated that fires would occur, especially in the drier

provinces. They did not, however, anticipate the size,
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

7

number, or placement of the fires that did occur. Some

events, like the range expansion of barred owls, were

completely unanticipated.

Both management and science experience suggest that

the complexities of ecosystem management and uncertainties of both internal and external processes and events can

confound the best-laid plans. Contributing to these complexities and uncertainties are the role of private lands in

meeting Plan intentions, the influence of lands and systems

like headwater streams that had not been considered as part

of the habitat for selected species, the implementation of a

multiscale plan where little attention was focused on midscale planning, the role of disturbances, and differences in

how federal agencies approached Plan implementation.

Given these limitations and inevitable information gaps,

asking whether expected responses were reasonable and

whether solid conclusions can be expected in just 10 years

are fair questions.

Looking Ahead

We acknowledge that some emerging issues are likely to

challenge both scientists and managers in the coming

decade in areas where we can only offer scant information.

These issues include such questions as: How does climate

change impact the effectiveness of the Plan as a risk

management strategy? To what extent can hazardous-fuel

reduction treatments (undertaken in the context of the

Healthy Forest Restoration Act [HFRA] of 2003) be conducted in matrix stands or in LSRs in the Plan’s drier areas?

What are the unintended social and economic consequences of implementing the Plan and where will they

manifest themselves? What are the ongoing changes in

societal values that will shape the next round of plans for

USDA Forest Service (FS) and BLM management? To what

extent are the Plan’s ecosystem management approaches

consistent with approaches to sustainability being enhanced by land managers in North America? How sustainable is the Plan, given the increases in demands for ecosystem goods and services as human population increases?

How can strategies for managing invasive species be

applied in the Plan area?

Our Goal: To Inform the Debate

On the world stage, the Plan is recognized as a unique

undertaking in the world forest management community.

The Plan’s emphasis on partnerships among scientists and

resource managers, ecosystem approaches, linkages among

scales, monitoring, and on institutions for coordinating and

using adaptive management practices are all distinctive.

The Plan combined a variety of tactics, such as an economic

adjustment initiative to provide temporary support to

people whose jobs were affected by changes in land management strategies. Looking back over the past 10 years

offers an unusual opportunity for a broad-scale examination

of the effectiveness of such programs intended to mitigate

social and economic impacts of the Plan.

To a large degree, the chapters that follow are written

by scientists who participated in FEMAT (1993), which

provided the scientific foundations for the Plan. They have

also provided guidance on the Plan’s monitoring modules.

Consequently, they bring a unique point of view to this

document. Some might argue that they have been too close

to the process and therefore cannot possibly provide an

unbiased evaluation. Others would say that because they

have been so close to the process, only they can offer the

kinds of insights provided here. One thing is certain: this

document probably represents the last time this group will

assemble as a unit to write in such detail about the Plan,

because although 10 years is not a long time in the life of

an old-growth forest, it is in the life of a scientist. The controversial issues that necessitated President Clinton’s forest conference in 1993 are part of the same debate that has

been with us for over a century and is still with us today. In

presenting the information, ideas, and perspectives in this

report our goal is simply to better inform that debate.

The report is organized as follows:

Part I

Chapter 1: Objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan

Synthesis. Provides an overview of the Plan’s origins,

describes its principles and land-use allocations, discusses

its monitoring module, and outlines the objectives of this

synthesis report.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

8

Chapter 2: Context for the Northwest Forest Plan.

Reviews the context leading to the Plan, including the

philosophical and legal basis, background information on

the environmental movement and the timber industry, and

the differences in agency culture. The chapter concludes by

reflecting on the continually shifting nature of the context

for managing federal forests.

Chapter 3: Synthesis: Interpreting the Northwest Forest

Plan as More Than the Sum of Its Parts. Considers the

Plan by examining all findings together, by looking at

changes in the last 50 years to gain the perspective of time,

by examining some general management principles, and by

looking forward through opportunities to address three

major management issues, contingent on the desired

balance of ecological and commodity values.

Chapter 4: Progress to Date. Discusses measurable

progress, validity of assumptions, and advances in learning

as a basis for looking to the future. We explore appropriate

scales, tradeoffs through time, and links between processes

and resulting patterns, and end with a discussion of future

flexibility.

Part II

Chapter 5: The Socioeconomic Implications of the

Northwest Forest Plan. Summarizes how well the Plan met

the socioeconomic needs outlined in the President’s

principles and discusses several unexpected changes in

community stability, timber markets, and the role of

nonfederal lands. It also takes on issues of sustainability

and multiagency decisionmaking.

Chapter 6: Maintaining Old-Growth Forest. Reviews what

was expected for, and what happened to, older forest, and

details understandings that have developed since the Plan

was written. This chapter explores the effects of disturbances on the reserve system, uncertainties such as climate

change, and the controversies with postfire salvage in

reserves. Much of the discussion is based on the idea that

biodiversity can be managed by managing for ecosystem

characteristics. The chapter ends with a range of reserve

strategies contingent on the desired balance of ecological

and commodity values.

Chapter 7: Conservation of Listed Species: The Northern

Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet. Reviews changes in

owl and murrelet populations and habitat, sources of

uncertainty, validity of assumptions, and new research

findings.

Chapter 8: Conservation of Other Species Associated

With Older Forest Conditions. Explores viability analysis,

lessons from the Survey and Manage program, and the

effectiveness of the reserve system.

Chapter 9: The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the

Northwest Forest Plan: An Assessment After 10 Years.

Reviews the aquatic conservation strategy central to the

Plan and the available findings from aquatic-system

monitoring, and examines new research findings, checking

for consistency with the conservation strategy. It also

discusses new ideas about ecosystem dynamics, the role of

fire in riparian reserves, and problems with managing at

both small and large scales.

Chapter 10: Adaptive Management and Regional Monitoring. Examines the processes of adaptive management

and regional monitoring used to achieve Plan goals and to

direct change over the long term. Also discusses uncertainties related to the precautionary principle, learning strategies, and issues surrounding linking what was learned to

changes in practice. Finally, the authors suggest ways to

improve adaptive management and monitoring.

Part III

Chapter 11: Key Management Implication of the Northwest Forest Plan. Part III was written by a team of employees from the USDA FS, USDI BLM, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. It reflects their review of early drafts of Parts I

and II as well as extensive discussions of the intent of Plan

implementation, the ensuing management actions, and

implications for future management actions. They also

discuss the desirability of reexamining the goals for the

Plan in light of emerging science findings and resource

conditions.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

9

References

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.;

Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.;

Phillips, R.H.; Tobe L. 2006. Socioeconomic monitoring results. Volume III: Rural communities and economics. In: Charnley, S., tech. ed. Northwest Forest Plan—

the first 10 years (1994-2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 206 p.

Clark, R.; Stankey, G.H.; Shannon, M.A., comps. 1993.

Social assessment of the options. In: Forest ecosystem

management: an ecological, economic, and social

assessment [FEMAT]. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and

others]: VII-1-VII-129 [plus appendicies].

Crespin, B.M. 2004. Northwest Forest Plan tribal monitoring program interpretive report. 36 p. On file with:

Richard Haynes, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland,

OR 97208.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA]; 16 U.S.C. 1531-

1536, 1538-1540.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

[FLPMA]. Act of October 21, 1976. P.L. 94-579, 90

Stat. 2743, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1701 (note).

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of

the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 211 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Perez, G.E., tech. eds. 2001. Northwest

Forest Plan research synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-498. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

130 p.

Healthy Forest Restoration Act [HFRA] 2003. Act of

December 3, 2003. HR 1904.

Hemstrom, M.; Spies, T.; Palmer, C.; Kiester, R.; Teply, J.;

McDonald, P.; Warbington, R. 1998. Late-successional

and old-growth forest effectiveness monitoring plan for

the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR438. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

37 p.

Lint, J.; Noon, B.; Anthony, R.; Forsman, E.; Raphael, M.;

Collopy, M.; Starkey, E. 1999. Northern spotted owl

effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest

Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-440. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 43 p.

Madsen S.; Evans, D.; Hamer, T.; Henson, P.; Miller, S.;

Nelson, S.K.; Roby, D.; Stapanian, M. 1999. Marbled

murrelet effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-439.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Mulder, B.S.; Noon, B.R.; Spies, T.A.; Raphael, M.G.;

Palmer, C.J.; Olsen, A.R.; Reeves, G.H.; Welsh, H.H.,

tech. coords. 1999. The strategy and design of the

effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest

Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-437. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 138 p.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA]; Act of

October 22, 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1600.

Quigley, T.M.; Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T., eds. 1996.

Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 303 p. (Quigley, T.M., tech. ed. The Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

Scientific Assessment.)
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

10

Sommers, P. 2001. Monitoring socioeconomic trends in the

northern spotted owl region: framework, trends update,

and community level monitoring recommendations.

Seattle, Washington: U.S. Geologic Survey, Forest and

Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Cascadia Field

Station, College of Forest Resources, University of

Washington. 56 p. http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/

socio/ph1final-body.pdf. (January 2006).

Sommers, P.; Lee, R.G.; Jackson, E. 2002. Monitoring

economic and social change in the northern spotted

owl region: Phase II–Developing and testing an indicators approach. Draft technical report. 40 p. On file with:

U.S. Geologic Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem

Science Center, Cascadia Field Station, College of

Forest Resources, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-

2800.

Stankey, G.H.; Shindler, B. 1997. Adaptive management

areas: achieving the promise, avoiding the peril. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-394. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 21 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of

the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for

management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the

northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown].

74 p.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

11

Chapter 2: Context for the Northwest Forest Plan

R. James Barbour, Richard W. Haynes, Jon R. Martin, Danny C. Lee, Rachel White, Bernard T. Bormann

social awareness and expectations for land in the public

domain, which has been reflected in corresponding federal

legislation, and has continued to inspire debate as to the

appropriate role of government in managing public lands.

We dig a little deeper into the laws associated with different

phases of public perception to provide context for the

discussions in subsequent chapters about the different types

of monitoring that have been performed under the Plan, and

whether the Plan is meeting society’s expectations. Note

that although the Plan is based in science, it was and still is

a political, not a scientific, document (FEMAT 1993). Thus

its power comes from the legislative and legal system, not

the scientific literature. As Judge Dwyer said when he issued

his final ruling on the Plan, “It does not matter whether this

is the best plan, it only matters that it fulfills all of the legal

requirements.”

Public Perception and the Role of

Government in Land Management

Up to and through the last half of the 19th century, disposal

of public land was a primary objective of federal land law

and policy. In fact, public lands presented a managerial

burden to the federal government, which saw them as

redeemable only through settlement, cultivation, and profit.

Providing land as an incentive for settlement (such as

homesteading) or development (such as railroads) was seen

as a way to “conquer” the wilderness and claim dominion

over the West. To best encourage this empire-building

“redemption” of the land, the most desirable public land

was disposed of first. In the mountainous West, this meant

the lower elevation areas and flatter valleys that contained

the most productive timber stands or rangeland and were

most suitable for agriculture. That these areas largely ended

up in private hands would one day dictate the management

options available to public agencies as the Plan was

designed.

Introduction

Although set in the Northwest, the issues at stake in the

Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) are much broader—and

much debated. The balance President Clinton described

between utility and protection when charging federal

agencies to develop the Plan (see chapter 1) has been

sought after for more than a century. In 1890, with the

closing of the American frontier, came the realization that

the Nation’s resources were finite; from that point on, debate has circled around virtually every management decision relating to land in the public domain. This debate

has often centered on “Should this land be viewed primarily

as a source of economic opportunity, or as a national treasure to be preserved untouched?” During the past century,

legislation associated with this debate has created the

USDA Forest Service (FS), the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS), and several smaller federal land

management agencies to administer public lands in the

Western United States.

Our task in this chapter is to briefly review the historical, philosophical, and political contexts leading up to the

Plan, and to address the continually shifting nature of social

movements and land management debates. Two commentaries on the establishment and objectives of the Plan that are

particularly useful in this respect are those by Tuchmann

and others (1996) and Pipkin (1998). These commentaries

are especially insightful because their authors were key

players in implementing the Plan. Pipkin’s report discusses

the genesis of the Plan, its achievements, some of the

lessons learned, and organizational changes resulting from

it. Tuchmann and others (1996) provided a brief overview

of the political and management histories of federal lands

that set the stage on which the creation of the Plan was

eventually played out. They also discussed the evolution of
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

12

As civilization made increasing inroads into the

Nation’s wild areas, the end of the 19th century also saw the

rise of the conservation and preservation movements (Hays

1959). George Perkins Marsh’s (1864) description of the

transformation of the environment as a feature of human

history and the role that clearing of forests played in human

development influenced the evolution of these movements.

Conservationists, such as Gifford Pinchot and Theodore

Roosevelt, believed that natural resources should be managed to provide a sustainable source of wealth and national

prosperity. On the other hand, John Muir, representing

preservationists, believed that wild places should be set

aside to be entirely protected from human hands. In the

formulation of the differing viewpoints held by those like

Muir and Pinchot, the separation between conservation and

preservation was born. And as these movements gained

momentum, federal legislators began to recognize the merit

in retaining management control over more and more

federally administered land. This realization came in fits

and starts, however, and was applied differently to different

parts of the federal land portfolio. What follows is a brief

look at how the creation of various land management

agencies dealt in different ways with defining the role of the

government in administering public land.

The Creation of the Forest Service

In 1897, the Organic Act created new forest reserves totaling

more than 21 million acres to protect the sources of the

West’s water, manage grazing, and regulate timber harvest.

The forest reserves were transferred to the FS in 1907 and

became the backbone of the national forest system.1

These events were intended to regulate the use of federally

administered lands, with the twin goals of protecting

natural resources and providing economically valuable

commodities. As Gifford Pinchot envisioned it in his autobiography, the creation of national forests should provide

1

See Fedkiw (1998) and Kaufman (1960) for different

historical perspectives on the USDA Forest Service history.

the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Pinchot

1947). Pinchot’s vision of how to manage these forests came

through strongly in his autobiography, especially when

berating preservationists who wanted to save every tree:

“Their eyes were closed to the economic motive behind true

forestry. They hated to see a tree cut down. So do I, and

chances are that you do too. But you cannot practice

forestry without it” (Pinchot 1947). (In contrast, Muir had

little faith in human intrusions on forests and wilderness:

“Unless reserved or protected, the whole region will soon or

late be devastated by lumbermen and sheepmen, and so of

course made unfit for use as a pleasure ground” [Muir

1912].) In keeping with the ethic of the conservation

movement, the creation of national forests resulted in

greater federal control, although national forest managers

generally followed an extensive, low-level management

model. Forest managers have maintained an enduring belief

that society values its national forests more for their

wildlife, water, and recreational opportunities than for

commercial values such as timber or grazing (Kennedy and

others 2005).

The Creation of the Bureau of Land

Management

Although the BLM’s mandate is now primarily one of

management, its roots are very different from the FS mandate. The BLM can trace its origins to the General Land

Office (GLO), which was created in 1812 to administer

federal lands, and was eventually given the responsibility

of disposing of them to encourage settlement and development. The BLM, the second largest land management

agency associated with the Plan, was created through the

merger of the Grazing Service and the GLO in 1946, but

another 30 years passed before its mandate was clearly

stated through that agency’s own “organic” act, the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976.

Through a combination of controversy, happenstance, and

design, the BLM gradually increased its management role

and decreased its disposal role. This new focus was reflected

in changes in BLM’s approach to forestry, which emerged in
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

13

the 1970s as a multidisciplinary management program

including recreation, wildlife, grazing, watershed, and

cultural resource programs.

Explaining the evolution of BLM’s forestry program

involves going back to one of BLM’s predecessors, the

GLO. In 1937, the Oregon and California Revested Lands

Sustained Yield Act (O and C Act) had restored federal

ownership of about 2.7 million acres of forest land in western Oregon by giving it to the GLO. A key feature of the O

and C Act was its stipulation that management of the O and

C lands, some of the best timber stands in the United States,

would help support the economic well-being of communities in the O and C area and provide a substantial portion of

timber revenues to the counties within these lands (Muhn

and Stuart 1988). The BLM inherited the O and C lands,

and their mandate, when it was created in 1946. Timber

production became politically important to the BLM as it

recognized the importance of these lands (which make up

most of the timberlands currently managed by the agency)

to the economic well-being of many local communities

(Muhn and Stuart 1988). Decades after the O and C Act, its

consequences would play a large role in both providing

land for the Plan, and creating controversy about the Plan’s

design and implementation because of the expectation of

sustained timber yields and revenues to counties.

The Creation of the National Park Service

and Fish and Wildlife Service

The NPS and FWS are the other two federal agencies that

manage substantial acreages within the Plan area. Their

histories and mandates are quite different than those of

the FS and BLM. Both NPS and FWS have their roots in

the preservation movement of the late 19th and early 20th

centuries. The NPS’s beginnings stem from the preservation of the 2 million acres of beautiful and geothermically

unique land of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. By

1916, when 19 national parks and 21 national monuments

had been created, the preservationist role of the agency

had been fairly well defined (Clarke and McCool 1985).

Although it is possible to trace the lineage of the FWS back

to 1871, it has only existed in its current form since 1970

and does not have an organic act describing its role (Clarke

and McCool 1985). The FWS has a dual mandate of

management (for national wildlife refuges), and regulation

through its consultative role under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Together with other

regulatory agencies like National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration Fisheries and the Environmental Protection

Agency, it provides oversight of Endangered Species Act

(ESA) reserves in environmental assessments (EAs) and

environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by

management agencies as part of their planning. The

management roles of NPS and FWS (at least for refuges)

have not changed materially since their inception.

Agency Culture and the Plan

An important concept for contextualizing the formation

of the Plan is that the mandates of the various federal

agencies responsible for managing and regulating federal

lands within the Plan area have evolved at different rates

and in different directions over the past two centuries. This

disjunction has created distinct cultures within these

agencies, causing friction during the establishment of the

Plan, and presenting difficulties in fulfilling President

Clinton’s stipulation that the Plan help federal agencies

work together. We think some notion of how these cultural

differences arose is important to understanding the way the

Plan has functioned over the past 10 years. At the same time

we recognize that our interpretations will not be viewed as

universally correct or even important by everyone who

wants to evaluate the Plan.

The century-old debate over natural resource management has manifested itself in various ways in the formation

of federal land agencies. The preservationist model, which

values “nature untrammeled” and encourages management

that sets aside land to allow natural processes to predominate, largely guides the management practices of the FWS

and the NPS. In contrast, the conservationist model calls for
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

14

management activities that manipulate forest structure to

achieve outcomes desired by humans, whether the objectives are commodities or other environmental goods and

services. Today, these management activities frequently are

designed to mimic ecological processes. This conservationist line of thought has driven much of the management

activity on FS- and BLM-administered land.

This is an important distinction which has probably

attracted different sorts of people to the various agencies

over the years. These differences in corporate philosophy

were certainly a factor in development of the Plan, and they

have influenced its implementation as well. Because of the

dissimilar ways in which the agencies were established and

structured, achieving interagency cooperation proved

elusive–especially in the beginning of the forest planning

process. For one thing, preexisting conflicts had to be dealt

with before true coordination could happen. As one

example, before the northern spotted owl (see appendix for

scientific names) was listed as a threatened species in 1990,

the FS and BLM were not required to consult with the FWS

about management implications to owl habitat. Once the

owl was listed, however, the agencies had to consult and

address some highly complex issues–a process that greatly

slowed their ability to reach decisions on things like timber

sales (Tuchmann and others 1996). This lack of smooth

coordination followed the agencies into the forest planning

process. Along these lines, Jack Ward Thomas, who headed

the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

(FEMAT), related his frustration at the clash of agency objectives during negotiations over the Plan. He felt that the

FWS was too single-minded in its emphasis on the northern

spotted owl, and that this caused a stagnation of agency

collaboration. “The situation with the Fish and Wildlife Service has been dragging on for nearly five years,” he wrote.

“They keep the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management from any type of methodical approach to management

of the forests of the Pacific Northwest” (Thomas 2004).

The Environmental Movement and the

Plan

While the federal land management agencies were forming

and gaining substance, the Nation continued to undergo

transformations that shaped American society’s thinking

about the role of federal lands. After an initial wave of

conservation successes that created 230 million acres of

protected land (as 18 national monuments, 5 national parks,

51 national wildlife refuges, and 150 national forests), the

Great Depression and then World War II sent conservation

issues into the shadows as the Nation dealt with other

urgencies and deprivations. When the war ended, a dramatic

postwar boom propelled the Nation toward economic and

social expansion. To fuel this expansion, demand for wood

increased significantly, resulting in a change in management policy that shifted federal land management practices

toward a timber production model resembling that used on

industrial timber lands. This was particularly true in coastal

Washington and Oregon.

After World War II, even as a more intensive industrial

forest management model was being created, the American

public began to recognize that timber harvest on public

land potentially threatened other resource values. Quality

of life was improving, with industry pushing forth a stream

of new consumer goods, and Americans enjoying new

amounts of leisure time and money. Along with this came a

new appreciation for the natural world as a source of

recreation and also as a source of fresh air and clean water—

especially as rapid industrial growth began creating more

and more pollution. The conservation movement reacted to

these changes, evolving from the turn-of-the-20th-century

emphasis on utilitarian resource-use policies into an

emerging ecological awareness that perceived humans as

part of the larger natural world. This perception recognized

that human activities were putting heavy burdens on the

fragile systems that support life. As it became a coherent

new concept, “environmentalism” also became a potent

force for change (Scheuering 2004).
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

15

Through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, a steady progression of environmental legislation and regulations

reflected the Nation’s increasing environmental awareness.

In 1964, the Wilderness Act gave impetus for preserving

selective areas of high recreation or wildlife values. Many

of the first congressionally designated wilderness areas were

centered on primitive areas that had previously been set

aside by the FS or BLM, but what was revolutionary about

the Wilderness Act was it set aside land for no other purpose but its own preservation–showing recognition by the

federal government that land had value even when left

undisturbed. The Federal Water Quality Act (the Clean

Water Act) was passed in 1965, the Clean Air Act in 1967,

and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. When the

groundbreaking NEPA was signed in 1969, it showed that

even the Republican Nixon administration felt compelled

to respond to the growing public demand for environmental

regulations. By April 22, 1970—the first Earth Day—the

environmental movement had truly arrived. Rachel Carson’s

Silent Spring (1962) and Paul Ehrlich’s The Population

Bomb (1968) were speaking to an increasingly informed

and concerned public—and the Sierra Club had grown into

a potent political lobby representing 78,000 members.

As society became better versed in ecological principles, its demands on federal land management agencies

became more nuanced. The environmental agenda came to

include an increasing interest in complex issues such as the

restoration and conservation of biological diversity. During

the early 1970s, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA),

the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the

1976 FLPMA, and a variety of other laws and regulations

documented these concerns for biological diversity on

federal lands. Inevitably these changes in law and policy

resulted in conflict between those interested in maintaining commodity production as a major, if not primary, objective for federally administered lands and those favoring

noncommodity values. In fact, as the environmental movement gained power, it also mobilized its detractors.

The NFMA and FLPMA were born of the ideological

concerns for the environment and increased interest in

public involvement in government decisionmaking that

characterized the 1960s and 1970s. They remain the principal statutes driving national forest and BLM planning

today.2 Although they did not change the multiple use and

sustained yield focus of federal forest management, NMFA

and FLPMA called for extensive planning and public

involvement. The intent was to reconcile competing public

demands at the scale of the individual national forest or

BLM district. Congress recognized that conflicts among

resource extraction, amenity values, and ecological issues

such as biodiversity were an integral part of public land

management. Rather than resolve such conflicts legislatively, Congress enacted a procedural planning process

wherein it was hoped that a thorough and open analysis

involving “integrated consideration of physical, biological,

economic, or other sciences” would make possible local

resolution of conflicts and wider acceptability of decisions.

Each national forest, grassland, and BLM district was

required to develop a land and resource management plan

with the purpose of guiding all resource management

activities for a 10- to 15-year period.

A key feature of the FS interpretation of NFMA was

the inclusion of the “viability clause” in the 1982 forest

planning regulations. This clause brought increased visibility and importance to species viability within forest

planning. Section 219.19, Fish and Wildlife Resources,

of the 1982 rule stipulates:

Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to

maintain viable populations of existing native

and desired non-native vertebrate species in the

planning area. For planning purposes, a viable

population shall be regarded as one which has the

2

Details regarding the FS planning process and the statutes

that govern this process are readily available on FS Web

sites. A useful starting point is http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/

nepa/.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

16

estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive

individuals to insure its continued existence is well

distributed in the planning area. In order to insure

that viable populations will be maintained, habitat

must be provided to support, at least, a minimum

number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area.

The viability clause would become a central factor in

the legal battles that arose over the northern spotted owl

and ultimately the design of the Plan. At about the same

time, ESA mandated that species whose continued existence was threatened or endangered, and the ecosystems

they depend on, would be given special management consideration. The NEPA required consideration of the cumulative effects of management activities at the project planning

stage. The combination of NFMA, ESA, and NEPA and the

regulations developed to enact them were effective tools for

promoting conservation of biological diversity.

These regulations and guiding principles, which arose

in response to social concerns and the increasing political

influence of the environmental movement, set the stage on

which the Plan took shape. Controversy arose when views

over the appropriate role of the government in natural

resource management clashed. The managers and scientists

who developed the Plan attempted to deal with this public

debate. They quickly realized that even the forest plans

required under NFMA covered too small an area to effectively address regional issues; a larger landscape plan was

needed to attack the viability question for northern spotted

owls and marbled murrelets as well as the habitat needs of

anadramous fish. They also realized that there was much

that they did not know, and that the Plan would need to

be versatile and open to change, especially considering

the inevitable shifts and changes aligned with societal

expectations.

Timber in the Pacific Northwest

It is not possible to consider the Plan in isolation from the

timber issue: if not for this issue it is unlikely that any other

human activity would have impacted forest structure

enough to raise concerns about the viability of old-growthassociated species. The forest products industry in California, Oregon, and Washington has played a major role in the

region—impacting both the region’s economy and ecosystems in ways that are not usually apparent in other U.S.

timber-producing regions.3 Recognizing this, the Plan

contained specific provisions that promised timber would

continue to flow from federal lands. This guarantee of continued timber production was a key factor in making the

Plan politically viable (Pipkin 1998).

The region’s forest products industry developed as the

demand for wood reached new heights during the postWorld War II baby boom. From the late 1940s until the late

1980s, timber harvest in the Douglas-fir region increased

roughly 25 percent, fueled mostly by increased harvest

on public lands (see figs. 2-1a, 2-1b, data from Warren

2004). In fact, between 1945 and 1965, timber harvest on

FS land in the western forests of Oregon and Washington

rose from about 149 million cubic feet (745 million board

feet) to 807 million cubic feet (4,035 million board feet)

(Tuchmann and others 1996). Note that this was the same

period that saw the rise of the environmental movement,

which meant federal land agencies had to address the

growing ecological concerns of the public at the same time

that they were changing forest structural conditions to an

extent that the West had not seen before. One way this

happened was with the passage of the Multiple UseSustained Yield Act (MUSYA) in 1960 and the Classification and Multiple Use Act in 1964, which set the stage

for adoption of management models by the FS and BLM,

respectively, that were considerably different from the

industrial model. They called for and defined sustained

yield (of timber or other commodities) as “the achievement

3

Robbins in his two-volume Oregon environmental history

(1997, 2004) described how the abundant forest resources

and creative energies of Caucasian settlement led to a large

industrial forest products industry that provided the livelihood for “dozens of small rural communities” and helped

define the sense of place that frequently motivated

Oregonians “to struggle with each other for the future

of the lands and homes they loved.”
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

17

and maintenance in perpetuity of a high level annual

or regular periodic output.” The ensuing implementation

of the MUSYA led to the FS adopting (in 1973) a nondeclining even-flow policy for harvest levels.

Meanwhile the forest products industry was expanding. The advent of mechanical processing made the use of

abundant large-diameter timber feasible, and the development of inexpensive transportation systems encouraged

delivery of products to the Eastern United States and east

Asian markets. Rapid economic growth in Pacific Rim

countries opened international markets to the coastal areas

of the region and the log export trade grew rapidly (fig. 2-2),

buoying stumpage prices. The rise and fall of the log export

market would play a particularly important role in the management of the region’s private timberlands and for state

lands in Washington. Export markets favored larger, older,

high-quality4 trees. When the export of logs from federal

timberlands was banned in the 1970s, it provided an incentive for private landowners to manage on longer rotations.

This had the ancillary (and temporary) benefit of increasing

the proportion of older forests (greater than 60 years) on

some private lands, particularly nonindustrial private forest

lands. Prior to the establishment of the Plan, however,

effectively all of the old-growth forests on industrial private

land and most of the old-growth on nonindustrial private

forest land had already been harvested. In fact, the proportion of the private inventory composed of trees >160 years

old dropped from 15 to less than 1 percent during the past

50 years.

A second consequence of the log export ban was that it

created a plentiful resource domestically for large log mills

that specialized in cutting public timber. But the design of

the mills that purchased federal timber made it particularly

difficult for them to adapt to major changes that would soon

shape the industry. Particularly difficult for them to survive

4

 For Douglas-fir, this is usually seen as a mix of stem

straightness, cylindrical boles, relatively small infrequent

branches (or no branches in older trees), and high stiffness

compared to other softwoods.

Figure 2-1a—Harvest for the Douglas-fir region (western Oregon

and Washington), by owner. FI = forest industry, OP =

nonindustrial private, NF = national forest, OG = other government.

Figure 2-1b—Harvest for California, by owner. NF = national

forest, OG = other government. Source: Warren 2004.

Staggered clearcuts were used starting in the early 1950s as

harvest expanded on the national forests

Robert H. Ruth
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

18

A California black oak log being sawn at the headrig in a mill in Northern California. The

headrig is a horizontal bandsaw, common in mills capable of sawing large logs.

Northwest sawmills have embraced new technologies to stay competitive. Here a worker is

running edger line in an automated small-log mill.

Dean Parry Dennis Dykstra
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

19

were the injunctions on the sale of federal timber that

occurred just prior to the implementation of the Plan,

which caused wood supplies to fall below existing processing capacity. For mills that were dependent on federal timber, size also mattered: by and large they simply could not

efficiently process smaller logs. For these reasons, through

the early 1990s these large log mills closed their doors.

When the Asian economic collapse hit in the mid-1990s

the region’s capacity to process logs larger than about 20

inches was mostly gone. Private landowners who tried to

shift sales of export-quality logs into the domestic markets

found that rather than the premium they had come to expect over the past quarter century, these logs were now discounted. The result has been an inevitable shift toward

forest management regimes that favor shorter rotations

(fig. 2-3). Today the economic incentive for all private landowners is to grow smaller, more uniform trees, which has

actually widened the gap between ecological conditions

on public and private land. These younger forests will not

provide the same type of biological diversity as was

traditionally found on nonindustrial private forest lands.

Issues at Stake in the Plan—Still Debated

Tension and debate surrounding society’s perspectives on

forest management will always be with us. These tensions

primarily reflect competing values and worldviews. Each

philosophy is based on a set of complex hypotheses, some

which the scientific community is only now beginning to

imagine how to test. In a sense, the Plan is an elaborate case

study that might begin to determine whether these philosophies are truly exclusive, or if they can coexist on the same

piece of land at the same time. The Plan attempts to blend

these opposing views of natural resource management by

using a mix of elements from the fields of conservation

biology, silviculture, and ecology.

The Plan is not simply a scientific document, it attempts to address the sociopolitical conditions that made

it necessary. It attempts to address questions of economic

Figure 2-2—Proportions of the Douglas-fir region (western Oregon and Washington) softwood harvest by product

category: history and projections from 2000 Resources Planning Act timber assessment. Source: Haynes 2003.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

20

Public vs. Private Land: the Challenge of Designing Late-Successional Reserves

Late successional reserves (LSRs) in combination with the other allocations and standards and guidelines are designed

to serve as habitat for late-sucessional and old-growth-related species including the northern spotted owl (USDA and

USDI 1994). The bifurcation of conditions between public and private forest land complicated Plan design, because

part of the political compromise associated with the Plan was that it would only affect federally administered land.

This eliminated much of the land with the best potential for spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon because

these low-lying coastal areas are largely in private hands. In general, the desire to protect the remnants of old forest

and key watersheds dictated placement of LSRs within the federally controlled landscape. According to Miles

Hemstrom who was then the regional ecologist for the Pacific Northwest FS Region and participated in designing

the reserves, the process was intended to include the best remaining blocks of old forests, whenever possible, in key

watersheds while paying attention to known spotted owl occupation areas. This set of criteria begs the question,

strictly from a scientific standpoint, of whether the existing reserve network is the most desirable network even though

it was the most pragmatic network given the combination of land ownership and vegetation patterns that existed at the

time. This suggests that the current reserve network could, in fact, be inefficient and that some other network could

provide the things promised by the Plan by using less space and in less time. But it is important to remember that even

though scientists might be able to recommend a more efficient plan, there is currently no political push to do so.

Figure 2-3—Private inventory by age class for the Douglas-fir region (western Oregon and Washington), 1950, 1980, and 2000.

FI = forest industry, NIPF = nonindustrial private forest. Source: USDA FS 1963, Haynes 1986, Haynes and others 2003.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

21

well-being by considering how jobs in timber-dependent

communities will be affected and recognizing other cultural

issues generated by political decisions associated with the

Plan. As a result, it layers the fundamental questions about

maintaining ecological processes and biological diversity

onto a social question that asks how we might manage

public lands to address the environmental, economic, and

social equity concerns that shape Americans’ everyday

lives.

Furthermore, although tension and debate surrounding

the competing values of forestry will always be with us, the

intense regional conflict that led to the development of the

Plan has receded to a more manageable level. Ten years ago

the region faced an injunction on timber harvest on federal

forest lands, and was mired in legal battles and emotional

debates. Out of this came the tremendous efforts of the

administration and federal agencies to redirect the regional

standoff toward compromise. As Pipkin describes it: “The

Northwest Forest Plan was upheld by the courts, the injunctions were lifted, and the region began to move forward

again. This was an important accomplishment—from a

situation characterized by stalemate, with no end in sight,

to one in which progress could be made on ecological,

economic, and social fronts.” (Pipkin 1998). Ten years later

we recognize that conflicts will continue, and there is still

room for improvement. However, the Plan, with its common

vision for the management of federal lands, can take credit

for defusing a volatile situation and creating a more civic

atmosphere.

References

Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

368 p.

Clarke, J.N.; McCool, D. 1985. Staking out the terrain.

Power differentials among natural resource management

agencies. Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press. 189 p.

Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964 (CMU). Act of

September 19, 1964, 43 USC 1411-1418.

Clean Air Act of 1967; PL Chap 360, 69 Stat. 322.

Ehrlich, P. 1968. The population bomb. New York:

Ballantine. 223 p.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA]; 16 U.S.C. 1531-

1536, 1538-1540.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

[FLPMA]. Act of October 21, 1976. P.L. 94-579, 90

Stat. 2743, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1701 (note).

Federal Water Quality Act [Clean Water Act] of 1965; 33

U.S.C. 1251-1387. PL 89-234.

Fedkiw, J. 1998. Managing multiple uses on National

Forests, 1905-1995: a 90-year learning experience and

it isn’t finished yet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 284 p.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of

the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Haynes, R.W. 1986. Inventory and value of old-growth in

the Douglas-fir region. Res. Note PNW-437. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

Haynes, R.W., tech. coord. 2003. An analysis of the timber

situation in the United States: 1952-2050. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-560. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 254 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Adams, D.M.; Mills, J.R. 2003. Contemporary management regimes in the Pacific Northwest:

balancing biophysical and economic concerns. In:

Monserud, R.A.; Haynes, R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds.

Compatible forest management. Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 267-296.

Chap. 10.

Hays, S.P. 1959. Conservation and the gospel of efficiency:

the progressive conservation movement, 1890-1920.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 297 p.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

22

Kaufman, H. 1960. The forest ranger: a study in administrative behavior. Washington, DC: Resources for the

Future. 259 p.

Kennedy, J.J.; Haynes, R.W.; Zhou, X. 2005. Line officers’

views on stated USDA Forest Service values and the

agency reward system. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-632.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

Marsh, G.P. 1864. Man and nature, or physical geography

as modified by human action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. 472 p.

Muhn, J.; Stuart, H.R. 1988. Opportunity and challenge:

the story of the BLM. Washington DC: U.S. Department

of the Interior. 303 p.

Muir, J. 1912. The Yosemite. New York: Century. 284 p.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 [MUSYA]; Act of

June 12, 1960, 16 U.S.C. (note), 528-531.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]; 42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA]; Act of

October 22, 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1600.

Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield

Act of 1937 (O and C Act). Act of August 28, 1937,

Public No. 405, 75th Congress, H.R. 7618.

Organic Administration Act of 1897. Act of June 4, 1897.

Ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 473-475, 477-

482-551.

Pinchot, G. 1947. Breaking new ground. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 522 p.

Pipkin, J. 1998. The Northwest Forest Plan revisited. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Office of Policy and Analysis. 117 p. On file with: Human and Natural Resources

Interactions Program, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,

620 S.W. Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.

Robbins, W.G. 1997. Landscapes of promise. The Oregon

story, 1940-2000. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 392 p.

Robbins, W.G. 2004. Landscapes of conflict. The

Oregon story, 1940-2000. Seattle, WA: University of

Washington Press. 414 p.

Scheuering, R.W. 2004. Shapers of the great debate on

conservation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing

Group. 312 p.

Thomas, J.W. 2004. The journals of a Forest Service chief.

Steen, H., ed. Seattle, WA: The University of Washington Press. 417 p.

Tuchmann, E.T.; Connaughton, K.P.; Freedman, L.E.;

Moriwaki, C.B. 1996. The Northwest Forest Plan: a

report to the President and Congress. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 253 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, [USDA

FS]. 1963. Timber trends in western Oregon and

Washington. Res. Pap. PNW-5. Portland, OR: Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 154 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management

[USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth

forest related species within the range of the northern

spotted owl.[Place of publication unknown]. 74 p.

Warren, D.D. 2004. Production, prices, employment and

trade in Northwest forest industries, all quarters 2002.

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-241. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 171 p.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968; 16 U.S.C. 1271 (note),

1271-1287, 82 Stat. 906, as amended.

Wilderness Act of 1964; 16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

23

Chapter 3: Synthesis: Interpreting the Northwest Forest Plan as More Than the

Sum of Its Parts

Bernard T. Bormann, Danny C. Lee, A. Ross Kiester, Thomas A. Spies, Richard W. Haynes, Gordon H. Reeves,

Martin G. Raphael, Jon R. Martin

Contributors: David E. Busch, Nancy Molina, Randy Molina, Bruce G. Marcot, and Martha H. Brookes

Interpreting the Collective Evidence From

the Plan’s First Decade

Our condensed tabulation of Plan performance (table 3-1)

suggests a collection of met and unmet expectations, each

depending on individual points of view. People most

concerned with ecological conditions may be pleased with

many of the changes. People concerned mostly about

timber-dependent communities and adaptive management

processes will likely be less pleased but may also believe

that outcomes could have been much worse. The decline of

northern spotted owl (see appendix for scientific names)

populations in the southern part of their range was at the

low end (2 percent per year) of the wide range of expected

decline (0.7 to 8.4 percent per year; chapter 7), but at the

high end (7.5 percent) in Washington for reasons not well

understood—possibly related to increasing barred owl

populations. The decade saw a net increase in older stands

that may eventually support more owls. The area of stands

that grew into large size classes was greater than losses of

older stands from harvesting and fire, even with the

500,000-acre Biscuit Fire. Marbled murrelets appeared to

maintain their population, although monitoring is limited

to the last 4 years and results may be confounded with

changing ocean conditions and a variety of other factors.

Multiple interpretations suggested that older and riparian

forests did better than expected, a result of harvest lower

than expected in the matrix and changes as forests grew into

larger size classes. At the time the Plan was written, species

habitat models were often seen as a way of determining

population trends more efficiently and less expensively

than by direct measures. We have learned that building

habitat models to predict populations is frequently as

complex and difficult as estimating actual populations

Introduction

Chapters 5 to 10 interpret the status and trend reports and

available science for each of the six major Northwest Forest

Plan (Plan) elements (socioeconomic implications; the

conservation of old-growth forests; listed and other species;

aquatic systems; and adaptive management and regional

monitoring). Each element was individually addressed,

partly as a way to help understand and explain them, and

partly because science is organized by discipline. Here, we

consider the elements collectively. We also take the liberty

to examine broader contextual factors and look for patterns

in available data extending back as far as 50 years. Then

we turn our attention to examining possible directions for

federal forest management in the next 50 years. We also

explore how these perspectives can be integrated with management and policy. Integration starts by recognizing that

federal land managers and researchers have very different

roles and perspectives. Managers are responsible for

developing and applying coherent management strategies

to meet complex societal goals, with legal, funding, and

personnel constraints, and through public input. Management strategies also seek to integrate various researchers’

disciplinary perspectives and be consistent with management experience and knowledge. We seek here to help with

this difficult task by revisiting principles of science-based

management and by illustrating the debate needed to integrate science and policy, from our perspective as researchers, through specific examples.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

24Table 3-1—Coalesced key short findings from Plan monitoring (see other chapters for details)

Indicator 10-yr expected1 10-yr findings2 10-yr deviation Relevance to the Plan and its implementation

Older forests Annual increase (1.2%) Annual increase Rate of increase The Plan slowed old-forest harvest; implementing

(FEMAT definition) (reserve lands only) (1.9%) (all land higher than nearly stopped it (chapter 6)

allocations) expected

Older forest losses Moderate (2.5%) Dry provinces Average over all Losses were mostly in dry provinces, and fuel

from fire (1-9%) provinces (1.8%) reduction was less than planned (chapter 6)

Wet provinces near expected

(0-1%)

Realized owl Slight to large Large decline High end of range Declines may have resulted from habitat loss,

populations in decline (7.5% loss per yr) barred owls, and other factors (chapter 7)northern range (0.7-8.4%

loss per yr)

Realized owl Slight to large Slight to no decline Low end of range Owl use of brushy habitat appears

population in decline (2.0% loss per yr) important (chapter 7)southern range (0.7-8.4%

loss per yr)

Plan-wide 5% loss to Slight decline Rate of decline The Plan slowed habitat loss; gains in older

owl habitat harvest and fire (1.3% loss) less than half forest do not yet meet habitat standards (chapter 7)

Plan-wide Conserve most Little (2.3%) lost Near expected The Plan slowed habitat loss and

murrelet habitat remaining habitat on federal lands implementing curtailed it further, but other factors

are likely involved (chapter 7)

Plan-wide About a 35% decline No change in Less decline than Ocean conditions and recruitment may

murrelet populations 4 years expected explain unexpected stability (chapter 9)

Other older forest Maintain with Many new sites Site protection as Although abandoned in 2004 through a SEIS

species annual review discovered and expected; and new ROD, the Survey and Manage program

species protected population trends was reinstated in 2005 by court order following

unknown lawsuits brought by environmental groups.

A new SEIS is currently in progress that continuesthe intent to abandon the Survey and Manageprogram (chapter 8)

Watershed condition Maintain or Of 250 watersheds As expected The Plan curtailed most riparian harvestscores increase monitored 60% leading to desirable scores (chapter 9)

increased, 39%maintained
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

25

Table 3-1—Coalesced key short findings from Plan monitoring (see other chapters for details) (continued)Indicator 10-yr expected 10-yr findings 10-yr deviation Relevance to the Plan and its implementation Road Unspecified 10 miles for every Large ratio; low The Plan generally decommissioned fewdecommissioning mile built miles miles of riparian roads in any given

watershed (chapter 9)

Altered riparian Many “Very few” Fewer than Modifications of boundaries was hindered by

boundaries expected reluctance of managers to make decisions

during watershed analyses (chapter 9)

Timber production 8.5 BBF <0.5 BBF per yr Harvest much lower Implementing ran into various problems,

in matrix distributed than expected including lawsuits and protests (chapter 5)

evenly overthe decade

Timber production Allow some Thinning in some More thinning Thinning in late-successional reserves made

in late-successional salvage logging reserves volume than up for some of lost matrix harvest (chapter 6)reserves expected

Community stability Stability Two thirds changed Both positive and The Plan had less positive or negative

 negative changes influence than expected (chapter 5)

Interagency and Improve relations Interagency, yes; Interagency better Interagency collaboration worked well in

agency-citizen agency-citizen- than expected; many, but not all, places (chapter 5)

collaboration mixed agency-citizen

less than expected

Adaptive 10 AMAs Few active AMAs Much less than As implemented, AMAs were insufficiently

management areas providing remaining expected flexible or institutionalized (chapter 10)(AMAs) changes to the Plan

Adaptive Not well A few projects Unknown The process was not widely integrated into

management process specified outside of AMAs agency missions (chapter 10)

Regional Not well Five modules are Near expected Regional monitoring was well

monitoring specified functioning well institutionalized and funded (chapter 10)

Employees- Slight decline Large decline (40- More than Plan goals hampered by sharply declining FS

Forest Service (as 60%) in OR NF expected workforce (chapter 5, 10)

capacity indicator)

Employees-BLM Slight decline Slight decline As expected Capability was continued (chapter 5)Manager-researcher Improved at least Improved relations More than The Plan was more science based than

collaboration on AMAs generally expected before (chapters 5, 10)

1 Few well-quantified expectations were included in the Plan. Here, we reconstruct expectations from FEMAT, the Record of Decision, and participant’s recollections. 2 Findings are derived from data in background monitoring reports. Percentages are per decade unless otherwise noted.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

26

Stevenson, Washington, is a former timberdependent community; community action and

residents transformed it to meet changing

recreation demands.

Richard Haynes

The Biscuit Fire in southwest Oregon burned nearly

500,000 acres in 2002.

thus, models may not be good substitutes for population

estimates. In general, the Plan can support conservation and

restoration of habitat, but wildlife populations may respond

to a variety of other factors, only some of which are driven

by habitat.

Continuing lawsuits and other expressions of dissatisfaction suggest that desired consensus and trust in management have yet to be fully achieved. Timber production was

far less than expected in the matrix allocation; some of this

loss was made up by greater than expected production from

thinning in plantations in late-successional reserves. Interviews suggested that timber-dependent communities were

disappointed in the Plan, but census data suggest that a

relatively small number of communities were severely

affected. Some job losses were offset by unexpected factors such as a generally good regional economy and new

services and development to accommodate inflowing

retirees. Pronounced losses of federal jobs were observed,

more than 50 percent on some Oregon and Washington

national forests (Charnley and others 2006). Losses in Planarea national forests in northern California were somewhat

less, and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district

jobs were relatively stable. Average national forest nonfire

budgets in the Plan area dropped about $250 million or 50

percent during the 1990s, driven by reallocation of national

funding.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

27

The specific interpretations of these observations reside

in the chapters in part II and in the status and trend reports.

Of interest here is the general result that some changes were

greater than expected and others less. A noticeable range

exists in the strength of evidence with which conclusions

can be drawn (discussed in chapters 5 through 10). This

range is attributable to the nature of available information

and how it was evaluated.

Recent scientific developments add to our understanding of Plan assumptions and help to interpret Plan implementation. Key findings from relevant research studies

include:

• Areas with diverse early-successional forest will

likely decline in the future with current strategies

on public and private lands (see chapter 6).

• Diverse pathways of succession lead to older forest

condition; a common one has low conifer densities

at young ages developing into multiaged stands

with closed canopy at old age (see chapter 6).

• Definitions of old growth by scientists and society

are changing and diverging (see chapter 6).

• Thinning plantations to move in the direction

of older forest habitat appears promising (see

chapter 6).

• Successful adaptive management is generally rare

in natural-resource management (see chapter 10).

• Active adaptive management at large scales,

although rare, is possible with sufficient leadership

and collaboration (see chapter 10).

• New approaches to public participation and adaptive management have evolved (see chapter 5).

• The importance of monitoring in facilitating

productive dialogue about management

possibilities was recognized (see chapter 10).

• Aquatic systems are far more dynamic than has

been realized; benefits from some kinds of fire and

landslides are newly recognized in some systems

(see chapter 9).

• A new, mixed-severity fire regime is recognized;

numerous older forests thought to be in highseverity regimes are now in mixed regimes (see

chapter 6).

• Federal lands have a small proportion of the best

coho salmon and murrelet habitat (see chapter 9).

• Barred owls may be replacing spotted owls,

especially in the northern range (see chapter 7).

• Owls in the checkerboard lands in their southern

range may have fared well because of adjacent,

brushy foraging habitat (see chapter 7).

• Nonfederal lands have important regional effects

in contrast to Plan assumptions (see chapter 5).

• The timber industry has adapted to changes, and

some of the adaptations benefit regional

employment (more manufacturing jobs per volume

of wood processed; see chapter 5).

• Communities express different degrees of

adaptability (see chapter 5).

• New kinds and magnitudes of complexity and

uncertainty are recognized (see chapter 5).

Most notably, ecosystem complexity and dynamics,

both social and ecological, are emphasized in many studies.

We also see some surprises, such as unanticipated mechanisms associated with changes in owl and fish populations.

Some of the unexpected changes—such as new industry

and community strategies—appear to be adaptations to

the Plan. These findings are discussed in detail in part II

chapters. Later, we look across the findings to seek emerging themes that might apply to the Plan as a whole, rather

than to individual Plan elements. Before we try to draw

many conclusions, we next place these findings in a

broader, longer term context.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

28

Interpreting the Evidence in a Broad

Context Over the Last 50 Years

Changes, whether induced by the Plan or other factors, are

best understood when placed in the context of the large

physical, biological, and societal complexity of Pacific

Northwest landscapes, and by looking at the changes over

timeframes longer than 10 years. Some of the spatial complexities are captured in the maps depicting older forests

(Moeur and others 2005, fig. 12) and census data (Charnley

and others 2006, fig. 2-5). We graphically examine available data to look for trends in the 40 years leading up to the

Plan compared to trends observed in the Plan decade (figs.

3-1 and 3-2). We examine these graphs to see if longer term

trends separate themselves from the noise of short-term

variability.

National trends and within- and between-state migration in human population are known to drive many factors

that influence management direction on federal lands (fig.

3-1a). Increased human presence in the wildland interface

has increased demand for water and recreation and has

increased the danger and costs of controlling wildfire and

hindered reintroduction of low-intensity fire. Because

managing federal lands has been ground zero for a societal

debate over how these resources and values are collectively

met, forestry has been elevated to the national political

debate in recent decades. The volatility of social and

political change (fig. 3-1b) makes long-term planning a

challenge. Examining all of these graphs together, shows

some interesting disconnects. For example, U.S. housing

starts, although quite volatile, do not increase with U.S.

population or decrease with Northwest harvest—no longterm trend is observed over the 50 years of data (fig. 3-1c).

Wood production from federal lands fluctuated moderately from 1960 to 1990, with only a small long-term

declining trend (fig. 3-1d). The subsequent steep decline

started just before the Dwyer injunction,1

 well before the

1

1994. U.S. District Court. Seattle Audubon Society and

others v. John L. Evans, Washington Contract Loggers

Association and others.

Plan was implemented. Wood production by forest industry

varied with market fluctuation until the late 1970s. Industry

harvest declined from then until about the start of the Plan

in 1994, and then leveled out during the Plan decade. The

stumpage value of harvested Douglas-fir spiked after the

Dwyer injunction and then began to decline during the Plan

decade, but it remains well above historical prices. A major

change occurred in the stumpage-price curves—previously

large-diameter logs were worth two to three times more per

unit volume than medium-diameter logs. This premium has

disappeared, apparently because of increasing demand for

small logs being processed in new, efficient mills and loss of

mills able to process large logs. Short-term variability in

lumber and wood-products jobs (fig. 3-1e) is smaller than

variability in harvest or housing starts. Jobs were relatively

steady up to 1980 and then began declining. The jobs per

unit of harvest actually increased starting in the late 1980s

and remains at a 50-year high. Economists think this

increase came from increased mill efficiency, the loss of the

log-export markets, and the associated increases in local

manufacturing (see chapter 5).

The trends in owl populations2

 (fig. 3-2a) and latesuccessional old-growth forest, both major indicators for

gauging progress, are mixed. Owl populations showed both

continued declines and stable populations depending on

differences in underlying factors and physiographic region.

The areas of older forest are stable to expanding, and expectations are for continued increases (see chapters 6 and 7).

The decisions not to cut as many older stands in the matrix

as the Plan had called for, and to focus more on thinning

plantations, yielded a double benefit to late-successiondependent species—fewer large trees were cut and smalltree growth was accelerated.

Tree harvest (not counting thinning in plantations)

was nearly stopped on federal lands during the Plan

decade. Although aquatic specialists perceived that watersheds are generally in a poor state, cumulative harvest in

riparian zones leveled off to about 5 percent (based on

2

Data from Anthony and others, in press.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

29

Figure 3-1—Fifty-year variability and change in (a) U.S. population, (b) voting patterns, (c) housing starts, (d) wood

production and stumpage price, and (e) forest-sector jobs. Figures a to c are from Caplow and others 2000; d and e are

from our chapter 5.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

30

Figure 3-2—Fifty-year variability and change in (a) owl populations (the insert separates population groups; from

Anthony and others, in press); (b) management capability expressed as workforce size (FS data); (c) fish populations, tree cutting, and ocean conditions (from Tschaplinski 2000); and (d) wildfire starts and Forest Service (FS)

and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) combined burned acres in Oregon and Washington (Forest Service data).

Missing data from early years was not collected or was not available.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

31

a sample of 250 watersheds; Gallo and others 2005), and a

small number of riparian roads were decommissioned. The

quality of aquatic habitat, defined by these factors, therefore

improved in the 1990s. Issues arise with a more indepth

analysis (see chapter 9). For example, although direct funding for road maintenance has remained fairly steady, lack of

surface replacement funds from timber sales resulted in an

estimated 70 to 80 percent shortfall in needed resources for

basic maintenance.3 Unfortunately, no long-term data on

fish populations are available in the Plan area to verify that

habitat and populations are empirically well linked. The

closest, most reliable data come from the Carnation Creek

study on southern Vancouver Island (fig. 3-2c), where fish

were monitored before and after 41 percent of the watershed

was harvested. Clearly, returning salmon populations have

high short-term variability making trends difficult to

discern. As more is learned about controlling mechanisms

and their interactions and variability—including ocean

conditions—the emerging story is that stressors and populations are highly dynamic so that fluctuations cannot be

attributed with much confidence to single causes, such as

forest harvesting (Tschaplinski 2000). Extrapolating the

Carnation Creek evidence (significant negative correlation

of tree harvest to returning chum; little correlation to coho)

across entire regions is likely further confounded by the

type and extent of harvest, the local geomorphology, and

many other factors. Research and monitoring may help us

to better understand these assumptions and better anticipate

new mechanisms, such as instream food availability, longterm disturbance effects, delayed effects, and factors limiting salmon during population dips. A network of more

controlled management experiments, with aggressive treatments and taking perhaps 20 years, is likely needed to

substantially improve our understanding to better manage

these resources. Many partners will be required and institutional barriers overcome to accomplish this task.

3

Personal communication. Michael Furniss, Redwood

Sciences Laboratory, 1700 Bayview Drive, Arcata, CA

95521-6013.

The federal-land acres in Oregon and Washington that

were burned in wildfires increased dramatically in the early

1980s—relative to the 1960s and 1970s—although the

number of fire starts appears reasonably steady (fig. 3-2d).

The recent increase in wildfire is widely thought to result

from fuel accumulation, caused in part by fire exclusion

(see chapter 6). A broad look at the wildfire evidence

provides insights into the difficulty of associating change

with specific management actions. Uncertainties arise from

numerous interacting factors, statistical interpretations, and

temporal perspectives. For example, the disconnect between

starts and area burned is obscured by the interactions of

increased fuel, weather, ignitions, and fire-response capacity. Although the average acres burned during the Plan

decade increased, compared to the decade before the Plan

(1985 to 1994), the confidence intervals around these

averages strongly overlap.4 When the historical record is

extended from 1954 back to 1916, new conclusions emerge,

such as that recent wildfire acres are actually less than those

observed from 1916 to 1945 (fig. 3-3). Looking further

back, wildfires in the first 15 years of the 20th century in

Oregon and Washington have been reported to be quite low

4

Rates for the Plan decade are 1.7 times those of the decade

before, but the 95 percent confidence intervals strongly

overlap (a valid, simple statistical test is not possible

because of the likelihood that autocorrelation in the timeseries data would increase or decrease the variance estimates). Further, this increase disappears when the 2002 fire

year, with the 500,000-acre Biscuit Fire, is not considered.

Two young spotted owls.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

32

(although the data are less certain), and changes appear

related to shifting climate—leading climate modelers to

theorize that wildfire is driven substantially by climatic

shifts (McKenzie and others 2004). The distribution of

wildfires may be shifting as well. Although wildfire rates are

close to that expected for the entire Plan area, most of the

fires were in the drier provinces (see chapter 6).

The only data we found that reflect the long-term

capability of agencies to carry out the complex directives

of the Plan were budget and personnel data dating back to

1990 (fig. 3-2b). Reductions in USDA Forest Service (FS)

personnel were steep, beginning some time before the Plan

started. Numbers of BLM personnel were much more stable.

These changes in capacity are likely related to the other

changes (Charnley and others 2006) but evidence of direct

connections are difficult to find.

Some patterns under institutional control (for example,

FS employee numbers) appear to have less short-term variability than market-driven factors like stumpage price. Patterns influenced by the broader economy, such as housing

starts, harvest on industrial lands, and wood-products jobs

have intermediate variability. Patterns influenced by natural

processes, such as fire, ocean condition, and animal populations, appear most variable. People’s lack of control over

dynamic natural processes will continue to challenge

institutions.

Patterns in some outcomes clearly rise above the

inherent noise of their short-term variability, but few can be

cleanly linked to the Plan itself. Looking at these patterns

together, eight changes are most notable (table 3-2). Other

smaller changes are clear, and perhaps no less important.

The perspectives gained from available long-term data on

outcomes (effects) suggest that the Plan is but one of many

interacting processes (causes) at play. An important lesson

from the Plan monitoring is that simply monitoring effects

without learning about their causes will not offer much

guidance when outcomes turn out to be undesirable.

Richard Haynes

Figure 3-3—Estimates of total acres burned in wildfire on all ownerships from 1916 to the present, divided among

Washington, Oregon, and California. Note that California data mostly come from fires outside the Plan area. Data compiled

by David L. Peterson, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103.

Timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest declined, but lumber

production for domestic markets increased, mitigating

employment declines
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

33

Considering Other Issues and Emerging

Perspectives for the Next 50 Years

Our review of regional monitoring and recent research was

not intended to be comprehensive or to provide much

information about emerging issues. So next, we seek to

make monitoring more useful to future management direction by interpreting the results from monitoring and research in a broad context (above) to reveal crosscutting

perspectives (below).

Our Evolving Understanding of Science-Based

Management

The Plan in the past decade has often been looked upon as a

model for large-scale ecosystem management (see Busch

and Trexler 2003, Johnson and others 1999, Sexton and

others 1999), and it will likely continue to do so. Specifically, the Plan has influenced discussions on the role of

science, the role of assessments covering broad geographic

areas, sustainability of ecological and social processes, and

the need for multijurisdictional and adaptive-management

approaches. We hope the experience we are describing in

this 10-year interpretive report continues to contribute to

the broader debate. In this section, we examine how the

experience with the Plan has shaped our understanding

of some of the issues surrounding managing complex

ecosystems.

Table 3-2—Big changes in the last 50 years, descending in magnitude (from variables displayed in figs. 3-1 and 3-2)

Outcome Observed change Pattern as related to the Plan

Older forests Loss of older forest stands in the last The decline in loss began 5 years before the

5 years is less than 5% of the late 1980s record of decision (ROD) was signed.

peak losses.

Wood production Production in the last 5 years is less Production is shifting to thinning of young

than 10% of the late 1980s peak. stands in reserves.

Wildfire Acres burned 1950 to 1980 were about Long-term trends and variability obscure direct

10% of burns 1980 to the present. relation to Plan.

Returning chum Returns in the mid-1990s are about 20% The variability, location, ocean changes, and

salmon, Carnation Creek of the mid-1970s returns. cutting intensity do not relate well to the Plan.

Capacity, using FS Forests now have 30 to 40% of the The decline began at least 5 years before the Plan.

employee numbers permanent employees in 1990.

Owl populations in About 60% of owls are left at present, No pre-Plan data are available to make

Washington compared to 1993. any inference.

Douglas-fir stumpage Prices before 1990 were about 65% of Prices appear related to regional timber

prices prices during the Plan decade. production.

Regional wood-products About 70% of jobs remain at present, A steady decline started in 1980 and continues

jobs, all ownerships compared to the peak in 1980. through the Plan decade.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

34

Role of federal lands—

Keeping changes on federal land in a holistic ecosystem

perspective is important. For example, Oregon published a

state-of-the-environment report (Oregon Progress Board

2000), where they concluded that:

The greatest opportunity for improving Oregon’s

environment in this generation occurs on lands that

Oregonians control: on state, county, and private

lands. Much of what potentially can be achieved

on federal lands is already reflected in new policies

and plans for managing forest and range lands.

Private lands have become increasingly important

to solving many of Oregon’s environmental

problems for this generation.

Placing the federal lands in context with private

timberlands in meeting Plan intentions is also important.

The impression that federal lands can solve the significant

issues that led to the Plan is false. Federal lands are only

part of the solution toward achieving broad societal goals

such as conserving biodiversity, maintaining forest productivity, or maintaining and enhancing socioeconomic

benefits to meet societal needs (table 3-3). New cooperative

relations between federal and other landowners might be

expected in the future.

Many people believe that Oregon, Washington, and

northern California have a better state of the environment

than many other states or countries around the world. Thus,

one interpretation is that the federal lands in the Pacific

Northwest represent the best of the best. “Saving the best” is

a legitimate approach, albeit perhaps with different consequences than “fixing the worst.”

Complexities of multiple scales—

The evidence from monitoring and research affirms that

ecosystems are changing in complex ways and are rarely

constant in time or space. The area covered by the Plan—

established to follow the range of the northern spotted

owl—includes 12 distinct provinces classified by their

differences in climate, vegetation, geology, and landforms.

Designers of the Plan recognized this variability and

included options for modifying standards and guidelines

even as they attempted to develop regional direction for

the sake of efficiency. One of the Plan’s biggest challenges

was and is how to implement a regional vision, one local

project at a time. Several issues deserve discussion.

Midscale transitions—

In reviewing the Plan’s first decade, we have observed some

potential gaps in the spatial scale of planning and activities. For example, many acres were thinned to meet regional needs such as owl habitat, fuel reduction, and timber production, but how much landscape thinking went

into those activities is not clear. Many ecological and

social processes are only important at the middle scales of

provinces, larger watersheds, and diverse landscapes; for

example, in dry provinces, meeting owl habitat needs and

reducing the risk of high-severity fire. Midscale analyses

are intended to help make the transition between scales, by

being more spatially explicit and more site specific than

regional plans. Midscale analyses could also play a role in

defining monitoring needs at this scale, helping to develop

a hierarchy of information. The opportunity exists to make

the next round of forest and resource unit plans facilitate

both management and monitoring activities across this

hierarchy.

Site specificity—

Substantial knowledge of local conditions and the flexibility to respond to this understanding are not optional

in multiscale management. Regional standards and

guidelines—for example, 10 down logs per acre—enforced

everywhere fail to take advantage of the critical knowledge

of local agency specialists. Local adjustment processes (for

example, to change riparian buffers and to allow active

adaptive management) had mixed success for a variety of

reasons. Site specificity is not possible without such processes. The concept of site specificity is highly developed

in silvicultural research and practice. For example, Hawley

(1921), when discussing the reasons so little was known

about silviculture, noted that “... silvicultural practice is
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

35

essentially a local consideration, varying in important details from forest to forest.” This observation remains true

today. Scientific inference to complex goals across complex terrain remains limited. For example, research

ecologists often develop general hypotheses and can

rarely test them in many locations, and research silviculturists have a tradition of testing hypotheses in locally

unreplicated blocks, often on accessible, gentle terrain.

Only the local agency specialists can think about how well

these ideas will work in specific sites. Multiscale managing

could come to terms with this disconnect. We are concerned that sharp reductions in field personnel may limit

understanding of site specificity and hence the successful

merging of general principles with local knowledge.

Challenges of managing complex systems with simple

rules—

One of the biggest challenges of ecosystem management

is the complexity of its application. The uncertainties

arising from multiple dynamic processes playing out over

an initially variable landscape are large, and they cannot

be easily dealt with by overly simplistic strategies developed to be efficiently applied. The concepts of land-use

designation, boundaries, and best practice are involved.

Table 3-3—How older forests, habitat, and timber harvest are distributed between public and private lands

as a percentage of area over the Plan area

Ownership Older forests High-quality High-quality murrelet Timber harvest

owl habitat nesting habitat

 Percentage

Federal and state 77 59 50 15

Private 23 41 50 85

Note: see chapters 5 through 7. Data represent 2000-2005

Bruce Marcot

Although heart rot fungus is not desirable in trees grown for

timber, it can create hollow standing trees and down logs, which

are important habitats for many species of wildlife including

swifts, pileated woodpeckers, fishers, raccoons, bobcats,

coyotes, and black bears.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

36

Dynamic forests and fixed management boundaries—

When the FEMAT options were developed, scientists knew

that the landscapes of the Pacific Northwest were dynamic

at all scales. Incorporating this dynamism into a 100-year

plan with mapped land-use designations was a major challenge. Many old-growth forests in the region required

centuries without high-severity fire to develop, and others

required low-severity fire every 20 years or so. Although

fixed land-use designations—reserves and matrix—formed

the basis of the Plan, the hypothesis was that Plan goals

could be met despite the disturbance and succession that

would alter the structure and composition of the forests in

those designations. The Plan anticipated that silvicultural

activities were needed in many of the biodiversity-oriented

reserves (80 percent of the federal lands), as well as the

timber-production-oriented matrix lands (20 percent of the

federal lands). The chosen boundaries were strongly

influenced by the patterns of existing older forest, but also

by a vision of a future, altered distribution of forest

conditions, designed to better meet Plan goals. This

reserve-matrix strategy has not been tried before at this

scale; thus, the long-term success is by no means assured.

Continuing to evaluate the strategy, as well as reasonable

alternatives to it, would be wise. Based on only one decade

of evidence from monitoring and other sources, we cannot

say whether a different spatial arrangement of reserves and

matrix would have been more or less effective. We also

cannot say with confidence, at this point, whether another

management option—such as FEMAT option 1 or 5—

would have produced a different outcome. Given the large

Plan area, and slow changes in forest conditions, alternatives that may result in different outcomes at 100 years

may appear relatively similar in the early decades.

Midscale assessment of the consequences of the current

pattern of reserves and matrix allocations—where changes

to boundaries or activities in designations were considered—was rare while the Plan was being implemented.

Given the threats from high-severity fire, insects, disease,

and uncertainties about reaching desired outcomes in the

dry provinces, we see reasons to reexamine the mid-scale

designations in these provinces, not only from the standpoint of boundaries, but also from the perspective of the

kind and intensity of active management needed in all

land-use designations to better reach the goals of the Plan.

This debate includes the boundaries of adaptive management areas. Should these boundaries change in response

to their effectiveness or changing ecological or social

conditions? The areas were chosen for a variety of reasons,

not strongly considering regional and local institutional

capabilities or how well they represented broader areas

(Stankey and others 2003a). Some of the more successful

adaptive management projects happened outside of the

adaptive management areas (chapter 10).

With few differences between how reserves, matrix, and

adaptive management areas were implemented, whether

land-use designation makes sense seems to be an appropriate question. Perhaps a strategy that just sets goals for protecting old forest and providing some commodity production for local communities, without drawing lines on a map,

would have been equally effective—assuming that society

could grant this much flexibility to federal agencies.

Challenges of managing under high uncertainty—

When all of the evidence is examined, several questions

come to light: How well do we know and can we know

these systems? How well can we attribute the various outcomes to the Plan itself or, for that matter, to the Plan’s

implementation? How can planning and managing respond

to large uncertainties?

Across all perspectives, evidence of uncertainties and

their effects is considerable:

• Spatial variability in the Plan area is known to be

large, driven by variation in geology, climate,

biota, elevation, and disturbance history (see

Moeur and others 2005 fig. 11), which is why

physiographic provinces were created by the Plan.

• Monitoring and other evidence exposed large

year-to-year variation in owl and salmon population estimates, wildfire acres, stumpage prices, and

ocean conditions.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

37

• Some outcomes were surprises, such as owl

population shifts, a 500,000-acre wildfire, various

lawsuits, changes in the stumpage price, loss of the

export markets and industrial infrastructure, community adaptations, retiree relocations, and major

FS employee and funding reductions.

• New mechanisms were hypothesized in various

chapters, including effects of barred owls and

wood rats on spotted owls, different watershed

dynamics in larger watersheds, and ecological

importance of disturbances and native, earlysuccessional pioneers.

• More complexities were recognized, such as large

local variation in fire history, and the need to treat

mixed-severity regimes differently.

• Unforeseen future trends also came to light, such

as long-term changes in seral-stage distributions,

not recognized before (chapter 6).

• Improvements in habitat models were not

sufficient to substitute for direct monitoring of

population changes.

• The effects of climate change on species and

ecosystems in the next decades are potentially

large, but also uncertain.

The conclusion that uncertainties are high is supported

by recent developments in ecology. Ecologists are increasingly stressing the uncertainty associated with ecosystems

and their dynamics (Hubbell 2001, Lande 1991, Lemons

1996, Ludwig and others 1993, Shaffer 2000). As a consequence, both scientists and managers have to contend with

uncertainty more than ever and, perhaps, more than they

would like. Implications extend to the Plan (Bormann and

Kiester 2004).

Clearly, both FEMAT (1993) and the Plan authors

recognized high uncertainty in the assessments themselves

by invoking adaptive management, adaptive management

areas, monitoring, and riparian adjustments as ways to

change course as more was learned. Implementing this

strategy to respond to uncertainty, however, showed mixed

results (chapter 10). Thus, reflections on the magnitude of

uncertainties and how to implement strategies to respond to

them are both needed. This debate is not limited to forestry.

For example, the business management literature uses a

term “environmental uncertainty” (extent of unpredictable

changes in the external environment, Buchko 1994). A

major debate continues on the need for changes in strategy

and planning when companies face high uncertainty, such

as shifting international trade and manufacturing patterns

(Galbraith and Kazanjian 1986). The theory states that

decisionmakers operating in highly uncertain environments

will adopt a planning process consisting of comprehensive

data collection, systematic data evaluation, and decisionmaking based on analytic outcomes, and managers operating in predictable environments are more likely to rely on

experience (Dean and Sharfman 1996). Forest management

under the Plan is clearly based on substantially uncertain

ecological and social processes; thus, new approaches to

planning may be needed to better adapt to changes. The

business model suggests that planning could be better

based in adaptive management, monitoring, and evaluation

closely linked to decisions. Agencies appear to be starting

down this path.

In this uncertain environment that Plan implementers

are managing in, how they respond to uncertainty is more

important than how much uncertainty exists. We offer two

strategies to consider: improved, systematic adaptive

management and monitoring; and diversified practice.

Systematic adaptive management—

In many attempts under different conditions, adaptive management often is disappointing (Walters 1997). The Plan

efforts are largely no different (chapter 10). The institutionalizing of regional monitoring and this mandated, 10-year

report does, however, represent major steps forward. Adaptive management was viewed as a cornerstone of the Plan,

largely as a mechanism to deal with recognized uncertainties. No alternative to moving forward with developing and

implementing an improved adaptive management and

monitoring system has emerged. A systematic and fully

institutionalized approach could make Plan implementation more dynamic by increasing the rate of learning
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

38

through a balance of regional monitoring and management

experiments on or off the adaptive management areas (fig.

3-4). A systematic approach could be driven by a small set

of corporate questions, geared to focus learning activities, and periodic interpretive steps to integrate disparate

knowledge sources in broader and longer term perspectives. Monitoring, management experiments, and periodic

interpretation steps would be driven by forward-looking

questions because of the time needed to detect changes in

complex forest systems. Annual interpretative workshops

could help institutionalize adaptive management and

respond to the dynamic nature of our understanding by

considering changes in approaches to better meet longer

term learning objectives. The path is clear to move from

opinion-based toward evidence-based interpretation of

the vital questions about federal forest lands. We can be

optimistic, with strong leadership and a professional focus,

that adaptive management can be implemented to bring

together managers, regulators, researchers, field specialists,

and multiple constituencies in a dialogue more constructive than the current debate. Adaptive management and

associated monitoring can be refocused on preparing for

future interpretive reports by refining the questions future

managers may face.

Diversified practice—

A concept not well appreciated in early versions of ecosystem management is diversifying approaches to spread

risks. The concept of diversified practice in response to

high risk and uncertainty is simple on the surface: just do

not put all your eggs in one basket. Why diversifying is

important and how to apply it are much less clear. Putting

all eggs in one basket is a risk especially where outcomes

are fraught with surprises. Diversified investment portfolios

also help illustrate the problem—successful portfolios

spread the risk of failure across fundamentally different

investments (such as stocks, bonds, and real estate), so

that if one type of investment fails another is not likely to

follow, thus evening out large fluctuations. Similarly, risk

is lessened in forest management when multiple valid

Figure 3-4—A conceptual model for more systematic learning, where corporate questions drive

various learning activities that feed into interpretive steps facilitating decisions on whether course

changes are needed, as well as on whether to revise the questions.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

39

approaches to achieving an objective are simultaneously

applied. Risk tolerance can be expressed by allocating

space to various approaches, which in turn affects the

magnitude of the gains and losses. Diversification does not

mean adding new objectives in a land-use designation to

be achieved by a wide variety of approaches, nor does it

insist that widely unacceptable approaches be included. It

simply means that the uncertainties are often high enough

to warrant trying multiple creative approaches at the same

time in the same land-use designation. The Plan did not

prohibit such variability, and the Plan also did not encourage it. Clearly, this new paradigm will need to overcome

best-practice inertia, and will need to be clearly articulated

to regulatory agencies and the courts.

Importance of planning language—

During the 1990s, we have seen concepts and associated

terms developed by scientists used generically in societal

debates about natural resource management. What scientists often thought to be technical issues became determinants of public opinions. As all concepts mature,

many definitions gain clarity; some remain ambiguous by

design; and some appear misleading. Herman Daly speaks

about the roles of vagueness and clarity in language (Daly

1996):

While not vacuous by any means, the [World Bank]

definition [of sustainable development] was sufficiently vague to allow for a broad consensus.

Probably that was a good political strategy at the

time—a consensus on a vague concept was better

than a disagreement over a sharply defined one. By

1995, however, this initial vagueness is no longer a

basis for consensus, but a breeding ground for

disagreement. Acceptance of a largely undefined

term sets the stage for a situation where whoever

can pin his or her definition to the term will automatically win a large political battle for influence

over our future.

Best Practice Versus Diversified Practice

Best practice and diversified practice in some ways are genuinely contradictory. A best practice is typically defined

when researchers and managers agree on the effects various practices will have on the ecosystem and can choose the

single practice ranked best. This choice does not mean that the practice will prove to be the best—after all, taking

logs out of streams was once a best practice, as is putting them back now. Diversified practice makes sense either when

consensus cannot be reached or when scientists agree that the existing evidence is insufficient to distinguish between

alternative hypotheses with confidence. Under these circumstances, ranking practices does not make sense, and in the

spirit of not putting all of your eggs in one basket, managers can logically decide to take multiple approaches. When

uncertainty is high, diversified practice follows from, and is consistent with, the well-known scientific method of

multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlain 1897).

An example: How could forests and salmon habitat be managed to sustain salmon populations? Our understanding of the mechanisms by which forest stream habitat condition affects numbers of salmon is not well developed. We

know watersheds vary in important ways and that many factors affect population numbers. We can certainly say that

salmon spawning and rearing habitat is necessary, but not sufficient, for salmon populations. Beyond that, more

quantitative relations have proved elusive. Is this a failure of the scientists to solve a research problem? No, the

problem is simply too complex and too variable to admit easy answers. Does this mean that the appropriate philosophy of science here is the method of multiple working hypotheses? Probably so. These, then, are issues in the conduct

of science that may also be relevant input for managers.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

40

Here, we examine how some terms have matured and

how they may affect the future of the Plan.

“Old growth” is no longer just a forestry or ecological

phrase—it has grown into a highly value-laden phrase

(Helms 2004, Spies 2004). Some of the more recent uses—

forests that lack a history of management and forests with

trees older or larger than trees found in plantations—now

have little scientific basis. At the same time, forest ecology

has advanced to recognize the complexity and variability

in all forests, including old growth (see chapter 6). The

older forest monitoring module (Moeur and others 2005)

accommodated multiple perspectives by analyzing a range

of potential definitions. This step is important in facilitating

a more informed and connected debate.

Management objectives have sometimes included

ambiguous terms to describe intent and rationale. We have

seen this practice backfire during the first decade of the

Plan. “Forest health” was cited as the major need in many

environmental impact statements (EISs) implementing the

Plan on matrix lands, rather than timber production (for

example, on the Eagle Creek EIS in 1996 on the Mount

Hood National Forest; Franklin and others 2001). Forest

One lesson from the Northwest Forest Plan is the importance of

communicating clearly and frequently.

health, to agency silviculturists, meant thinning to reduce

insects and disease, perhaps reduce fuel load, and to

promote growth of residual trees; it meant natural progression toward older forest to some people; and others thought

a healthy forest was one without human intervention. The

lesson, however, is that using “restoring forest health” as a

cover for Plan-directed timber harvest in the matrix is not

acceptable to the public. We suggest that simple direct

language will also help us to write better, shorter National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents that clearly

explain proposed direction by connecting rationale and

evidence to decisions.

The phrase “adaptive management” was used extensively in the Plan with varying perceptions of success,

including some critical reviews in the scientific literature

including titles like, Adaptive Management and the Northwest Forest Plan: Rhetoric and Reality (Stankey and others

2003a). Much of this variation arose from the lack of effort

to forge a common definition or understanding of the concept. That monitoring and adaptive management were

considered separate activities initially points to conceptual

confusion as well. We sought to more clearly portray a

vision in the adaptive management and monitoring (chapter

10). More work is ahead.

The term “reserve” was chosen in the Plan to describe

late-successional and riparian land uses that included some

active management. Confusion arose from at least two

sources. Reserve was not used to describe the matrix allocation or the adaptive management areas where even moreactive management was planned. Reserve also sounds a lot

like preserve, often used in association with wilderness and

park lands. The term has a long and varied history and is

now defined by international consensus to encompass both

active and passive management (see chapter 6). Changing

to a name without a double meaning would not be sufficient

without the effort to clearly define and widely articulate

what the land-use objectives are.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

41

Lastly, we would like to clear up what is meant by the

“Plan.” To the public, much of what we describe sounds like

a single overarching document that sets the context (and

direction) for managing federal forest lands. But land management planners taking a NEPA-centric approach argue

that no single plan exists; rather, it is a document that

amended 24 forest and district plans.5 This view suggests

that we take care in how we represent future planning

efforts if we want to avoid conflict with broader public

perceptions.

Issues of trust—

The implementation of the Plan has been slowed by a

lack of trust between various citizen groups and land managers. Mistrust arises from questioned intentions, lack of

clarity, unwarranted certainty in the debate, and differences

between promises made and promises kept. Other forms

of mistrust are more rooted in beliefs and social discord.

People often have difficulty accepting the intent, objectives, or approaches presented by polar groups. Some of

the adaptive management areas were able to assemble

diverse stakeholder groups and, through personal interaction, come to consensus on controversial projects that

were then opposed by national organizations (Stankey and

others 2003b). Trust has a difficult scaling dimension—

trust is or is not given at multiple, sometimes independent

scales.

Key in this next decade is attending to the factors and

processes that can enhance trust between and among people

and organizations (Stankey and others 2003b). In the

science community, we need to avoid presuming that trust

is equivalent to high statistical confidence and association.

On the management side, consider how trust can contribute

to developing and implementing land management plans,

to helping groups (networks) form, to engaging them in the

process—including assistance in defining the range of

acceptable options and the basis of compromise—and to

5

Personal communication with senior managers group

(informal interagency committee).

developing public understanding and support. This last

aspect is critical because, as Stankey and others (2003c)

have argued, without public understanding and support, the

political legitimacy and capacity of management agencies

to act effectively is in doubt.

Uncertainties about ecological and social processes

and institutional capacities could be articulated more

openly and clearly than they have been in the past—in

planning and decision documents—to manage expectations; a range of outcomes rather than a single outcome

would often be more in line with what is known. Convincing people that managing ecosystems for complex resource

objectives has considerable uncertainty should not be difficult; after all, if a plan—as ambitious and complex as this

Plan is—has never been implemented before, why should

people expect great certainty in whether it will or will not

work well? Building institutional capacity focused on

learning that connects to multiple constituencies may be

an important way to build trust. This trust building appears

to be happening in the Five Rivers project on the Siuslaw

National Forest. After a 12,000-acre management experiment contrasting ways to manage plantations to achieve

late-successional and riparian objectives was enjoined,

along with many other projects in coastal forests in 1997,

the environmentalist plaintiffs, after learning of the project,

Timber harvest protesters.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

42

asked the court to remove it from the injunction, and the

court agreed—even though substantial commercial timber

volume was to be sold. Forest industry interests have also

enthusiastically supported the project even though it

includes significant areas where thinning will not be

allowed. Whether such trust-building can happen at larger

scales remains unclear.

Bringing Science and Management

Together

Integrated management strategies—

Any interpretation of monitoring results and new science

cannot be applied without some concept of potential future

directions managers might take. The role of science is to

inform decisions about those directions. Here are several

examples of possible future direction, mainly to illustrate

how science and policy may be integrated. But first we

need to recognize again that science is only one factor

influencing decisions about how to manage federal land.

Many people think the Plan is about saving old growth

while maintaining lower timber harvests. A careful reading

of the original list of the President’s principles suggests a

more complex set of goals, including economic, ecological, legal, intergenerational, organizational, and perhaps

even emotional elements:

• Never forget the human and the economic

dimensions.

• Protect the long-term health of our forests, our

wildlife, and our waterways.

• Be scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and

legally responsible.

• Produce a predictable and sustainable level of

timber sales and nontimber resources.

• Make the federal government work together and

work for you.

National forests and BLM districts are expected to

provide recreation, aesthetic landscapes, hunting and

fishing opportunities, firewood, wilderness, special forest

products, and many other values not addressed explicitly in

the Plan but specified in forest and district plans. Legally,

the Plan is an amendment to these plans that deals with a

limited range of societal objectives thought to be met only

through regional oversight.

Managers understand that scientific information is

rarely well integrated in support of their complex management objectives. Fragmented knowledge coming from

different disciplines may lead to artificially fragmented

approaches, each geared to a specific problem. Managers

of federal lands respond to meet multiple public values, but

values cannot be efficiently addressed one at a time. Management efficiencies can be found when multiple values can

be met together—although not necessarily at the same time

or place—which is easier said than done.

In effect, managing federal forests can be thought of as

a strategy of strategies, seeking to meet a blend of societal

objectives by applying the broad scientific understanding

of how to achieve those objectives combined with local onthe-ground experience and knowledge, and within institutional capacities and constraints. Flexibility is the key

because all of these factors change through time. The

chapters on policy context, socioeconomics, and adaptive

management touch on some of the complexities and

uncertainties other than those associated with scientific

understanding of forest ecology. The dynamics of these

social processes have strong similarities with the dynamics

of ecological processes discussed in the older forest,

species, and aquatic chapters. The full appreciation for the

difficulty of the job is understood when the interactions of

all of the social and ecological processes are combined.

Examples of integrated approaches—

We develop and discuss a range of potential approaches

to pressing issues, to think about how science and policy

might be better integrated. These approaches are

necessarily vague and incomplete; our discussions are

not a scientific assessment of them. The scenarios simply

provide a way to think about the integrative problems

managers face. The discussion represents the kind of

debate that will likely lead to wise policy.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

43

Salvage logging in late-successional reserves—

Salvage logging in late-successional reserves—a contentious issue in implementing the Plan—is a good example of the complexities of the science-policy interface,

and the limits to which science can guide management.

The Plan allowed for “some” removal of dead trees from

late-successional reserves to meet additional nonecological objectives (USDA and USDI 1994):

Salvage guidelines are intended to prevent negative effects on late-successional habitat, while

permitting some commercial wood volume removal. In some cases, salvage operations may

actually facilitate habitat recovery. For example,

excessive amounts of coarse woody debris may

interfere with stand regeneration activities following some disturbances. In other cases, salvage may

help reduce the risk of future stand-replacing

disturbances. While priority should be given to

salvage in areas where it will have a positive effect

on late-successional forest habitat, salvage operations should not diminish habitat suitability now or

in the future.

With our current state of knowledge, ecological science

cannot help much in determining what “some” means and

in determining at what rate or extent salvage removal would

diminish habitat suitability (see chapter 6). For example,

although we know that large dead trees have many ecological functions in postwildfire stands (Lindenmayer and

others 2004), we cannot predict how species composition

and ecosystem function will change over the long run when

only some of the commercially valuable dead trees are

removed, leaving various amounts of snags and downed

wood. Furthermore, only managers can decide how to weigh

the tradeoffs between the uncertain ecological effects and

known economic benefits of commodity production from

salvage logging. The issue is further complicated by the

fact that timber receipts from salvage logging FS land can

be used for other fire recovery efforts, such as planting,

replacing culverts, restoring trails, reducing fuels, and

monitoring. A guiding principle of the Plan was to provide

for legally sufficient protection for species and ecosystems

and, having done that, to provide for economic and social

well-being. This tradeoff was well specified in the record of

decision by designating reserves and matrix. Only a few

situations remained where managers had some options for

additional weighing of ecological and economic values—

salvage logging in late-successional reserves is one of them.

The pro- and anti-salvage arguments—articulated by different groups of researchers after the Biscuit Fire (for example, Lindenmayer et al. 2004, Sessions and others n.d.)—

reflect the scientific uncertainty, multiple interpretations of

Plan nuance, and disjointed societal mandates.

We see opportunities for incorporating more science

into these decisions, nonetheless. We start by suggesting

that learning about postfire management on late-successional and riparian reserves is important, given the uncertainties in how systems will respond to salvage over the

long term. Risk of serious flaws in thinking suggests that

rigorous comparisons be made between areas not salvage

logged, allowing natural processes to unfold; areas with

some salvage logging, attempting to speed older-forest

recovery and pay for associated actions; and areas with

innovative strategies, for example, prescriptions for frequent underburning. Large fires present an opportunity

where, by applying active adaptive management (chapter

10), enough initially similar lands can be found for replicating these comparisons. We also see many important research

needs, to retrospectively reassess responses of forested

landscapes to past fire and salvaging, to explore the effects

of disturbance on long-term productivity and biodiversity,

and to study poorly understood patterns and processes like

the long-term roles of wood and pioneering and invasive

plants.

Managing fire-prone forests—

The older-forest and species chapters present a rationale for

substantially increasing and repeating fuel treatments over

large areas in the drier parts of the Plan area, as a way to

maintain important habitat. A new fire regime (mixed
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

44

severity) has been identified, and studies have shown that

fire histories are more related to local terrain, vegetation,

and climate than thought before. The Plan carries mixed

messages about how to set priorities among fuel reductions

on one hand and maintain owl habitat and avoid Endangered Species Act (ESA)-defined losses (take) on the other,

and different scientists emphasize different messages. An

active scientific debate is ongoing about the best ways to

reduce the spread of severe fire over diverse landscapes.

Managers are left with multiple understandings from

science, multiple interpretations of Plan language, and not

much on-the-ground experience in applying frequent lowintensity fire in these forests. They are also left with the

reality that funds to reduce fuels are lacking and court

rulings are unpredictable. And they are presented with

national priorities to reduce dangers to local communities,

as well as to meet other regional and local priorities. Again,

the decisions managers make are only partly based on

science. The feasibility of managing fire-prone national

forest land lies, in part, in whether revenues can be generated in thinning sales to pay for uneconomic thinning,

mulching, underburning, planting, and other needs. A

major challenge in learning how to reintroduce frequent,

low-intensity fire also exists, as does finding alternatives in

areas where smoke violates the Clean Air Act. Potentially

disconnected needs also require attention, such as maintaining roads and access for economic fuel reduction and

for fighting future fire—and decommissioning roads to

improve riparian habitat.

We see opportunities to reinvigorate multiscale analysis

and management to approach this problem. Multiple interacting objectives are involved, such as protecting life and

property, facilitating control of future fires, maintaining

suitable habitat for owls and other species, facilitating

recreation and hunting, increasing local employment,

improving aesthetics, supplying firewood, and many other

multiple-use objectives detailed in the local forest or

district plans. Multiple interacting patterns and processes

are also involved, such as current vegetation; variance in

fire regimes; distributions of habitats, populations, and

roads; places where backfires might be set; other disturbances; and invasive plants, to mention a few. Each of these

objectives and factors scale differently. Multiscale analysis

could be developed to examine tradeoffs across the full

multidimensional objective-process space. Midscale

analyses are central because most tradeoffs are between

the regional and local scale. Midscale analyses are intended

to help make the transition between scales by specifying

approaches for sites to best meet broad-area objectives.

Results from regional assessments could be incorporated

into midscale analyses to provide context and identify

possible issues at this scale. With midscale analyses in the

dry areas where the risks to maintaining the ecological

functions of reserves is high, considering how the Plan

land allocations might be modified to better deal with

these highly dynamic landscapes may be necessary. Such

modifications need to be considered in light of landscape

management strategies and deviations from expected Plan

outcomes.

New approaches to managing fire-prone forests could

better accommodate the uncertainties identified. For example, in dry forests near towns where fuel reduction is a

priority, a range of fuel reduction methods might be tried.

Because these communities have real concerns for their

safety, they may be more willing to get engaged in a management experiment to rigorously compare alternate

methods that they can help to develop and implement.

They may also oppose lack of action as one of the methods

compared. Management experiments that only include

alternative fuel-reduction methods, without a no-action

method, will produce valuable information nevertheless.

Fuel reduction trials would be a great place to involve the

regulatory agencies as full partner in the design and

monitoring.

Managing for a distribution of seral stages—

The Plan was created to solve the problem of declining old

growth, with the underlying issues of owls and biodiversity

in general. Recent projections suggest that, by 2050, older
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

45

forests will occupy 75 percent of federal lands in the Plan

area, up from 45 percent today (Mills and Zhou 2003). The

consequences of a widening gap in ecological condition

are poorly understood. Natural disturbance regimes have

been used to justify policies seeking to increase older forest on the landscape. Yet those same studies also indicate

that landscapes in the Plan area were not completely

blanketed by older forest (Nonaka and Spies 2005); in fact,

many areas were a complex of young and old forests, with

the mixture varying across multiple spatial and temporal

scales. As research on the owl in the southern part of its

range suggests (Franklin and others 2000), landscapes with

a blend of old and diverse early-successional forest may be

better for native biodiversity than landscapes dominated

by only older forests. Although private and industrial lands

will likely continue to have a preponderance of young,

managed plantations, diverse early-successional communities may become underrepresented. Vegetation management is very effective at shortening the time and space for

pioneers, whereas natural succession often has a prolonged

period when pioneer plants and their associates dominate.

Many of these pioneer plants are known to control

important processes affecting long-term soil productivity

and biodiversity.

If a diversity of successional stages at broad spatial

scales is desirable for maintaining native biological

diversity, then the question becomes: Does the Plan provide

for that diversity? Of course, natural disturbances, such as

fire and insect outbreaks, will create diverse early-successional conditions in the Plan area. In the moist provinces

and to some degree in the dry provinces, however, most

high-severity fires will be suppressed, and the amount

of diverse younger forests may not achieve what would

have been expected under a natural disturbance regime.

Consequently, creating some of this diversity in earlysuccessional forest through active management might be

desirable. The Blue River study (Cissel and others 1999) is

an example of an alternative to meeting the goals of the

Plan where active management was used to create a specified distribution and spatial pattern of successional stages

across a federal landscape (this approach was actually

intended to maintain mature-aged forest conditions and

avoid a federal landscape with only young and old-growth

stages). The state of Oregon is also trying to implement a

variable-rotation-length approach that allows more timber

production than on federal lands, while maintaining a

portion of the landscape in older forest. A long-rotation

approach, however, was initially considered by FEMAT

scientists but rejected because of perceived high risk to

terrestrial and aquatic species and ecosystems.

These different perspectives could be further developed

into contrasting strategies that would be rigorously compared in large-scale management experiments. Involving

people with different perspectives is essential and would

allow creative approaches to coalesce and be seriously

considered. We also see some opportunity to examine past

management retrospectively to shed some light on these

ideas.

Considerations

The current Plan course is the net result of the intersection of initial Plan objectives with the realities managers

faced along the way. During the first decade of the Plan,

we have concluded that the agencies did well, especially

for biological objectives. Many expectations for timber

production and adaptive management might have been

overly optimistic, and perhaps were somewhat unreasonable. Better managing of expectations in the next decades

is important. Budget reductions for federal agencies—

especially the loss of funds from FS trust accounts, often

from revenues generated from timber harvests—led to major

reductions in permanent FS employees, which influenced

agency capacity. Perhaps a timber program is required to

meet the many other important agency functions—like

keeping records, maintaining roads, and even providing

for recreation and wildlife. We are also concerned whether

minimal capacities are being maintained, such as the onthe-ground knowledge of the forest. The main question in

the near future may be whether the current federal workforce

can carry out the complex management strategies set forth
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

46

in the Plan, and if such a workforce cannot be assembled,

whether a different approach is needed. In the last few years

of the Plan, managers appear to be dealing with these problems more successfully, especially with increased thinning

volume from plantations in coastal late-successional reserves and fuller funding of and attention to a fully institutionalized and integrated adaptive-management and

regional monitoring program.

Science from monitoring and research does not lead to

specific prescriptive solutions. The evidence and its collective uncertainties do suggest that we cannot know for certain that another approach (for example, one of the other

FEMAT alternatives) would have done better or worse

than the approach applied, which is not to say that all

approaches work equally well. In general, we think the

goals of the Plan cannot be met by returning to the timber

harvest rates in the mid-1980s or converting the FS and

BLM lands into de facto national parks. The historical

harvest rates would have quickly cut most old stands and

impaired critical habitat for important late-successional

and aquatic species, and continue to be unsupportable by

current case law. Eliminating commercial harvest from the

federal lands would not be in the interest of the timberdependent communities or others, especially in fire-prone

areas or forests requiring considerable institutional or

financial resources to meet other objectives. Our understanding of ecological and social processes, their interactions, and their collective uncertainties suggests that a

range of middle courses exists that is reasonably consistent

with what we understand about how these forest ecosystems

work. Middle courses might be found, not by more science,

but by developing a new, positive vision of how the federal

forests can meet diverse societal goals, rather than focusing

on meeting regional standards and guidelines. Improving

adaptive management and monitoring, risk management,

and record keeping can increase the effectiveness of these

middle courses and provide a more solid foundation for

connecting to the diverse constituencies in the region.

References

Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Franklin, A.B. [and

others]. [In press]. Status and trends in demography

of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife Monographs.

Bormann, B.T.; Kiester, A.R. 2004. Options forestry: acting

on uncertainty. Journal of Forestry. 102: 22-27.

Buchko, A.A. 1994. Conceptualization and measurement of

environmental uncertainty: an assessment of the Miles

& Snow perceived environmental uncertainty scale.

Academy of Management Journal. 37: 410-425.

Busch D.E.; Trexler, J.C., eds. 2003. Monitoring ecosystems: interdisciplinary approaches for valuating

ecoregional initiatives. Washington, DC: Island Press.

447 p.

Caplow, T.; Hicks, L.; Wattenburg, B.J. 2000. The first

measured century: an illustrated guide to trends in

America, 1900–2000. Washington, DC: American

Enterprise Institute Press. 300 p.

Chamberlain, T.C. 1897. The method of multiple hypotheses. Journal of Geology. 5: 837.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.;

Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.;

Phillips, R.H.; Tobe, L. 2006. Socioeconomic monitoring results. Volume III: Rural communities and economics. In: Charnley, S., tech. ed. Northwest Forest Plan—

the first 10 years (1994-2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 206 p.

Cissel, J.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Weisberg, P.J. 1999. Landscape management using historical fire regimes:

Blue River, Oregon. Ecological Applications. 9(4):

1217-1231.

Daly, H. 1996. Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 253 p.
Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

47

Dean, J.W., Jr.; Sharfman, M.P. 1996. Does decision

process matter? A study of strategic decision-making

effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal. 39(2):

368-396.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of

the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Franklin, J.F.; Anderson, D.R.; Gutierrez, R.J; Burnham,

K.P. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in

northern spotted owl populations in northwestern

California. Ecological Monographs. 70(4): 539-590.

Franklin, J.F.; Bormann, B.T.; Meslow, E.C.; Reeves, G.H.

2001. Report of the independent review team for the

Eagle Sale. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/documents/

current/EagleReview.pdf. (January 2006).

Galbraith, J.R.; Kazanjian, R.K. 1986. Strategy implementation: structure, systems, and process. 2nd ed. St. Paul,

MN: West Publishing Company. 187 p.

Gallo, K.; Lanigan, S.H.; Eldred, P.; Gordon, S.N.; Moyer,

C. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years

(1994-2003): preliminary assessment of the condition

of watersheds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-647. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 133 p.

Hawley, R.C. 1921. The practice of silviculture. New York:

John Wiley and Sons. 354 p.

Helms J.A. 2004. Old-growth: What is it? Journal of

Forestry. 102(3): 8-12.

Hubbell, S.P. 2001. The unified theory of biodiversity and

biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press. 375 p.

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S. 1999.

Bioregional assessments: science at the crossroads of

management and policy. Washington, DC: Island Press.

398 p.

Lande, R. 1991. Risks of population extinction from

demographic and environmental stochasticity and

random catastrophes. American Naturalist. 142:

911-927.

Lemons, J. 1996. Scientific uncertainty and environmental

problem solving. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.

433 p.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Foster, D.R.; Franklin, J.F.; Hunter,

M.L.; Noss, R.F.; Schmiegelow, F.A.; Perry, D. 2004.

Salvage harvesting policies after natural disturbance.

Science. 303: 1303.

Ludwig, D.; Hilborn, R.; Walters, C. 1993. Uncertainty,

resource exploitation and conservation: lessons from

history. Science. 260: 17, 36.

McKenzie, D.; Gedenof, Z.; Peterson, D.L.; Mote, P. 2004.

Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology. 18: 890-902.

Mills, J.R.; Zhou, X. 2003. Projecting national forest

inventoried for the 2000 RPA timber assessment. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-568. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 58 p.

Moeur, M.; Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.; Alegria, J.;

Browning, J.; Cissel, J.; Cohen, W.B.; Demeo, T.E.;

Healey, S.; Warbington, R. 2005. Northwest Forest

Plan–the first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trend of

late-successional and old-growth forest. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-646. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 142 p.

Nonaka, E.; Spies, T.A. 2005. Historical range of variability

in landscape structure: a simulation study in Oregon,

USA. Ecological Applications. 15(5): 1727-1746.

Oregon Progress Board. 2000. Oregon state of the

environment report 2000. http://egov.oregon.gov/DAS/

OPB//a>. (February 1, 2005).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

48

Sessions, J.; Buckman, R.; Newton, M.; Hamann, J. [N.d.].

The Biscuit Fire: management options for forest

regeneration, fire and insect risk reduction, and timber

salvage. 63 p. Unpublished report. On file with: College

of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

97331.

Sexton, W.T.; Malk, A.J.; Szaro, R.; Johnson, N.C., eds.

1999. Ecological stewardship: a common reference for

ecosystem management. Oxford, United Kingdom:

Elsevier Science. 761 p. Vol. 3.

Shaffer, W. 2000. Foreward. In: Perry, J.N.; Smith, R.H.;

Woiwod, I.P.; Morse, D.R., eds. Chaos in real data.

Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers: vii-x.

Spies T.A. 2004. Ecological concepts and diversity of oldgrowth forests. Journal of Forestry. 102(3): 14-20.

Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; Shindler, B.;

Sturtevant, V.; Clark, R.N.; Philpot, C. 2003a. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan:

rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry. 101(1): 40-46.

Stankey, G.H.; Clark, R.N.; Bliss, J. 2003b. Fostering

compatible forest resource management: the conditional nature of social acceptability. In: Monserud,

R.A.; Haynes, R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible

forest management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers: 453-480. Chap. 16.

Stankey, G.H.; McCool, S.F.; Clark, R.N. 2003c. Building

innovative institutions for ecosystem management:

integrating analysis and inspiration. In: Shindler, B.A.;

Beckley, T.M.; Finley, M.C., eds. Two paths toward

sustainable forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press: 271-295. Chap. 15.

Tschaplinski, P.J. 2000. The effects of forest harvesting,

fishing, climate variation, and ocean conditions on

salmonid populations of Carnation Creek, Vancouver

Island. In: Knudsen, E.E.; Steward, C.R.; MacDonald,

D.D.; Reiser, D.W., eds. Sustainable fisheries management: Pacific salmon. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers: 297-327.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of

the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for

management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the

northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown].

74 p.

Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management

of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation

Ecology. 1: 1. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1.

(March 2005).
49

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Chapter 4: Progress to Date

Danny C. Lee

Contributors: Bernard T. Bormann, Richard W. Haynes, Thomas A. Spies, Gordon H. Reeves, Martin G. Raphael, David E.

Busch, Jon R. Martin, A. Ross Kiester, Nancy Molina, Randy Molina, and Bruce G. Marcot

trees and multistoried canopies. Other successes include

active watershed restoration and decommissioning of roads,

site-specific protection of sensitive species, improved

watershed planning processes, increased understanding of

the distribution and habitat needs of species of concern, and

advancing silvicultural practices to accelerate old-growth

development.

The Plan also fell short in some arenas, most notably

in providing for a “predictable and sustainable level of

timber sales and nontimber resources” and “new economic

opportunities for year-round, high-wage, high-skill jobs”

(FEMAT 1993, chapter 3). Specifically, timber harvest rates

were lower than expected. Current overall harvest rates

likely can be sustained, but only if the mix of harvest

prescriptions changes through time to match changes in the

structural composition of forests. Timber shortfalls resulted

in economic hardship for some communities, but others

were able to compensate by increases in other economic

sectors and through active civic leadership. Active fuels

management in the drier forests of the eastern Cascades and

Klamath-Siskiyou regions lagged behind expectations,

perhaps increasing the risk of uncharacteristic large or

severe fire in these regions. Large fires, such as the Megram

Fire in 1999 (125,000 acres) and the Biscuit Fire in 2002

(500,000 acres), resulted in substantial losses of older

forests and local increases in watershed degradation, but

disturbance rates averaged over the Plan area were consistent with expectations.

The Plan failed to fully end “the gridlock within the

federal government,” although increases in cooperation

among federal agencies and between research and management were noticeable. An understandable lack of consensus

among stakeholders and the agencies contributes to

continuing stalemate in some areas.

Introduction

The inferences and opinions expressed in this report attest

to the complex nature of the Northwest Forest Plan (the

Plan) and its far-reaching effects on the socioeconomic and

ecological fabric of the Pacific Northwest. Progress to date

can be summarized by addressing four interconnected

questions:

• Has the Plan resulted in changes that are consistent

with objectives identified by President Clinton?

• Are major assumptions behind the Plan still valid?

• Have we advanced learning through monitoring

and adaptive management?

• Does the Plan provide robust direction for the

future?

Measurable Progress

President Clinton challenged federal agencies to work

together to develop a scientifically credible plan to protect

the long-term ecological health of federally managed forests, while providing sustainable levels of forest products

that would contribute to the economic stability of the

region. Has the Plan resulted in changes that are consistent

with the objectives identified by President Clinton? Ten

years after it was initiated is too soon to judge whether it

has been fully successful, but some trends are clear.

The most notable accomplishments are associated with

protecting late-successional and old-growth forest, termed

older forest, and riparian forests and associated species.

Harvest of trees in older forest and riparian areas has

dwindled to insignificant amounts compared to historical

harvest rates. The Plan protects most existing old-growth

stands from future harvest, and other midseral stands are

slowly developing old-growth characteristics, such as large
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

50

Nan Vance Bruce Marcot

Richard Haynes

A variety of forest products contribute to human well-being: bear grass and salal used as floral greens, mushrooms both as a

cash crop and as a food; Douglas-fir for softwood lumber.
51

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Validity of Assumptions

The Plan rested on many wide-ranging assumptions either

explicitly identified in planning documents or implied

through the Plan’s direction and expectations. Various lines

of evidence support the veracity of many of these assumptions, yet others have been challenged by new findings or

emerging knowledge. Testing and refining assumptions is a

critical step toward improved understanding and ability to

manage effectively.

Many Assumptions Remain Valid

One of the Plan’s central assumptions was that old-growth

forests (especially those with older forest structure) were

limited in distribution and that the network of reserves

identified in the Plan would encompass most of the remaining old growth. Updated (and more accurate) inventories are

remarkably consistent with pre-Plan regional estimates of

old-growth forest and reaffirm the assumed overlap of old

growth and the reserve network (chapter 6). The network of

late-successional reserves and congressionally reserved

areas was also assumed to include most of the best remaining habitat for northern spotted owls (see appendix for

species names) and other old-growth-dependent species.

Recent estimates identified 10.3 million acres of owl habitat

in these areas, representing 59 percent of the owl habitat

available on federal land (Davis and Lint 2005). Owl

habitat also was thought to be an adequate surrogate for

marbled murrelet habitat where the two species overlap,

and it was assumed that the Plan reserve strategy would

include 86 percent of the federally controlled murrelet

nesting habitat. Improved modeling of murrelet habitat

has produced similar estimates (81 percent), suggesting that

the original planners successfully identified much of the

nesting habitat on federal lands. Whether protection of

habitat has halted declines in owl or murrelet numbers is a

complex and as yet unanswered question (chapter 7).

In a similar context, key watersheds that were assumed

to be in better condition than most were identified as part of

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). The aquatic monitoring effort demonstrated that key watersheds generally

have fewer roads and higher rates of road decommissioning,

which accounts for higher condition scores (Gallo and

others 2005). The aquatic strategy was designed by using

a body of science that pointed to the dynamic interconnections of riparian vegetation, large wood, sediment, and

landscape disturbance. Subsequent research has further

strengthened the underlying assumptions of the ACS

(chapter 9).

Monitoring results reinforce several other key assumptions of the Plan. For example, forest inventory data

abundantly demonstrate that trees can grow quickly in the

productive forests of the Pacific Northwest. Increases in

mean tree diameter in undisturbed stands suggest that oldgrowth forests are being naturally recruited, with positive

implications for both terrestrial and aquatic species. It is

still unknown how rapidly these new old-growth forests will

acquire the structure of older forests.

Experimental thinning in plantations demonstrated that

some old-growth features, such as large trees and spatial

heterogeneity, could develop more rapidly following treatment; other features, such as species diversity, may simply

require time (chapter 6). The implications of accelerated

development are not fully understood. Clearly, many species are associated with old-growth forests, but whether they

respond solely to structure or to more time-dependent processes (dispersal, for example) is often unknown.

Two of the more controversial issues in the Plan include

the permanency of reserve boundaries and salvage logging

in reserves. The Plan assumed that reserve networks would

be large enough to withstand large disturbances without

loss of function. Thus far, that assumption seems to hold

true. That fixed reserves are an optimal strategy for conserving biodiversity in the long term remains an untested

assumption. Indeed, testing such a broad-scale, long-term

hypothesis is not possible in a short time. In chapter 6,

we note that the direction for salvage logging in latesuccessional reserves was unclear, but left open the possibility of limited salvage logging for commercial purposes. An

underlying assumption was that the rationale for salvage

logging was primarily economic, not ecological, and little
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

52

salvage in reserves would occur. Emerging science findings

confirm assumptions about the ecological functions of

downed wood and large snags following wildfire. Retention

of large, dead tress following stand-replacing wildfire

provides long-term benefits consistent with the ecological

goals of the Plan.

Unsupported Assumptions

Several assumptions incorporated into the Plan have since

shown to be unsupported, or only weakly supported, by

new evidence or understanding. Assumptions were challenged regarding both socioeconomic and ecological

relations, with implications for both. One of the more

important findings concerns the role of the federally managed lands. From a socioeconomic perspective, it was

assumed that timber flow from federal lands was a key

determinant of community well-being. As discussed in

chapter 5, this is true in some communities. Looking more

broadly, the presumption that federal land would continue

to be a major supplier of high-grade commercial timber is

questionable. The dominant social values expressed in forest management may have changed since Plan inception.

For example, lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, and protest

regarding harvest of old-growth forest in matrix areas or

thinning older forest in reserves has resulted in lower-thananticipated harvest levels, and have slowed the pace of

active management. The results include unanticipated

amounts of old growth remaining in matrix areas and

elevated risk of uncharacteristic severe fire in dry forests,

with positive and negative implications for species of

concern. Post-Plan information on species’ distributions

and habitat preferences can aid local or regional assessments of whether old-growth harvest in matrix areas or

additional fuel treatments in dry forest threaten species

viability.

Experience with the Plan has led to important changes

in how ecosystem processes are viewed and the applicability of various conservation paradigms. For example, the

northern spotted owl was used as an umbrella species; it was

assumed that conserving the habitat of spotted owls would

provide for the needs of many other old-growth-dependent

species. Because of the Survey and Manage program, we

now recognize that a single-species focus may not be

effective for all old-growth-related species, and that more

holistic strategies may be required. The identification of

barred owls and West Nile virus as potential threats to

northern spotted owls demonstrates that providing habitat

is a necessary but not sufficient condition for conserving

species. That disturbance is an important component of

ecosystem productivity and biological diversity is increasingly recognized; positive long-term benefits can arise from

episodic disturbances at a variety of spatial and temporal

scales.

Advances in Learning

Many of the issues involved in monitoring and adaptive

management discussed in chapter 10 are briefly summarized

here by asking, “Have monitoring and adaptive management advanced learning?” Overall, the answer is a qualified

yes. Some notable successes were achieved, but also some

failures; improvements are possible in places.

Without question, the monitoring program produced a

wealth of data and information. Major improvements in remote sensing and forest inventories provide a detailed picture of current forest conditions throughout the Plan area

and allow tracking of changes in these forests. Species

surveys and population monitoring aid understanding of

the distribution and habitat needs of many species and provide indicators of change for select species. Because of the

Survey and Manage program, for example, more than

67,000 species locations were mapped—an unparalleled

achievement for a monitoring program over a similar-sized

area. The northern spotted owl monitoring program is one

of the most intensive avian population monitoring efforts

in North America. The aquatic and riparian monitoring

effort is systematically building a database on riparian and

instream conditions that is amenable to both monitoring

and exploring linkages among ecological drivers and
53

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

responses at multiple spatial scales. Despite its late start,

the socioeconomic program has produced findings that aid

understanding of the large-scale context of the Plan, as well

as its regional and local impacts.

Room for improvement can be found, however, even

in the most successful programs. Some efforts are still in

nascent phases; judging their ultimate success is difficult.

Funding shortfalls and disagreements on design slowed

implementation of the aquatic and riparian monitoring

program. The marbled murrelet monitoring effort also took

time to get underway, which limits the time series available

for analysis. A general plan for monitoring biodiversity was

not developed; even defining biodiversity pragmatically

is difficult (chapter 8). Inconsistencies between agencies

and administrative units continue to impede integration of

data in multiple ways. For example, differences in remote

sensing and classification methods created problems in

developing a seamless vegetation map stretching from

California to Oregon and Washington.

Experimental management has produced useful, but

spotty, results. Much of the success has come from standlevel experiments such as variable-density thinning in

plantations or combinations of prescribed fire and thinning

in experimental forests. Rigorous broad-scale experiments

were lacking. Experience with adaptive management areas

is generally disappointing, because they have not facilitated the degree of innovation and experimentation expected. Too often, precaution seems to have trumped

learning. As discussed in chapter 10, carefully focused

questions, quantifiable expectations, efficient monitoring,

and well-structured comparisons could accelerate learning.

Looking to the Future

Invariably, the question arises as to whether observations of

the past decade provide evidence that the Plan is or is not

working and warrants revision. Science alone cannot offer a

definitive answer to this question, nor should it. To assert

that the Plan is working requires subjective judgments for

which no consensus exists. The Plan is too complex and

diverse to give it a simple pass-fail grade. Clearly, some

expectations of the Plan have been met more successfully

than others, but it is too early or too difficult to judge most

outcomes. How the Plan is ultimately judged depends on

expectations, the value assigned to its various components

and consequences, and beliefs about the possible performance of alternative strategies. Judging the Plan is much

like trying to evaluate the performance of a sports team

early in the season when team cohesion is weak and their

strengths and weaknesses have not been fully tested nor

revealed and observers have their own criteria for declaring

success.

Various observations on the Plan and its ability to help

federal agencies address major management challenges are

reviewed below. These observations are organized by the

types of problems that characterize particular issues, rather

than by topical areas. The various issues and their similarities are assessed in terms of appropriate scale, temporal

tradeoffs, or interactions between pattern and process.

Finally, the Plan’s flexibility to address a range of issues

is examined.

Appropriate Scale

The importance of spatial scale is an oft-repeated theme

in this report. That is, every major issue has its own characteristic scale or mix of scales. Mismatches between the scale

of a management response and the characteristic scale of the

issue can contribute to ineffective management. For example, the Plan is addressed exclusively at federally managed lands. For socioeconomic issues, federal lands are a

small part of local, regional, and even international economies. Thus, trying to anticipate or assess the Plan’s effects

without looking at the larger context is illogical. On the

ecological side, wide-ranging species like anadromous

salmon and marbled murrelets cannot be managed effectively on federal land alone. Other issues like invasive

species and wildland fire do not recognize administrative

boundaries. Federally managed land is vital to solving

wide-ranging problems, but overall societal goals cannot

be met by partial fixes. Therefore, integrating the Plan with

transboundary planning efforts such as the National Fire
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

54

Plan, the Northwest Power Planning Council’s fish and

wildlife program, or other state and federal efforts can help

build partnerships essential for success.

Below the level of transboundary problems, other

spatial-scale issues fall wholly within the federal estate.

Chapter 6 touches on the linkages between size and distribution of reserves and the purposes they are intended

to serve. Limited historical evidence suggests that they are

large enough to be resilient to certain types of disturbance,

but hardly impervious. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the role of

complementary coarse- and fine-scale filters in species conservation. The lesson is that some species may fall through

the cracks of a coarse-scale policy that expects large reserves to meet the needs of all species. Some level of

fine-scale protection of unique habitats or even of individuals (for example, nesting pairs of owls) may be required.

Chapter 9 also discusses the importance of managing within

watersheds by looking across a range of stream sizes and

upstream-downstream and upslope-riparian perspectives,

and discusses that broad-scale strategy of managing for a

range of watershed conditions. Chapter 3 identifies the lack

of mid-scale planning to help match the Plan’s strategic

direction to an appropriate scale of action.

Temporal Tradeoffs

The questions of appropriate spatial scale are paralleled by

issues of temporal scale. One pervasive issue is that of the

tradeoffs between short- and long-term consequences. This

issue is particularly acute when a short-term impact (or benefit) is highly probable but small, relative to a less likely

but more substantial long-term benefit (or impact). The

classic example is fuel management in fire-prone ecosystems; the negative short-term effects on sensitive species

such as spotted owls can be balanced against possible longterm benefits of reduced losses in habitat to high-severity

fire. A second example is salvage logging. Salvage logging

may provide short-term economic gain and reduce fuel

loads (depending on methods), but also may have longterm consequences for soil compaction, erosion, or loss of

unique early successional habitats containing large downed

wood and snags (chapter 6). Indeed, the more general question of active management versus passive protection

invariably invokes temporal comparisons. As discussed in

chapter 10, simple rules such as the precautionary principle

do not assure an optimal solution.

Moreover, temporal tradeoffs are implicit in decisions

about agency organization, staffing, training, and investment in research or learning. Just as physical infrastructure

constrains management options, the same is true of social

capital, agency technical capacity, knowledge, and technology. Major reductions in agency workforce affect the ability

to plan and implement projects. Federal workforce reductions also affect rural communities, where federal workers

may be some of the more highly educated and influential

residents (chapter 5). The discussion in chapters 3 and 10

regarding agency capacity for adaptive management and

midscale planning reinforce a basic truth—you cannot

build a trustworthy ship without shipwrights.

Science played a major role in shaping the Plan, and

scientists continued to be active in implementing, monitoring, and assessing its effects. A shift toward advanced technologies (for example, internet, geographic information

system, and remote sensing) has improved efficiency,

changed agency operations, and even revamped how

federal agencies engage and interact with the public. Management challenges continue to grow and become more

complex, however, making prudent investments in research

and learning even more critical. Such investments reflect

additional tradeoffs between short- and long-term gains.

Funds invested in monitoring and research are not available

for other uses nor can the benefits be guaranteed. In these

cases, we need to be sensitive to the information needs of

management (and society in general), and identify explicitly the expected benefits and risks of investments in

research and monitoring.

Pattern and Process

A third—and perhaps most daunting—set of problems in

ecosystem management involves interactions between

pattern and process. Similar to the issues of appropriate
55

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

scale, pattern and process are intertwined concepts for

describing, understanding, and managing landscapes—with

a temporal twist. Pattern, the spatial arrangement of landscape components, is a consequence of process, the interactions between ecological components acting on a landscape. Just as pattern results from processes, processes are

also constrained by pattern, but more than just pattern;

other ecological components can be involved. An example

is wildland fire. Fire acts in concert with other processes to

shape spatial patterns of vegetation structure. Conversely,

the expression of fire on a landscape is constrained by vegetational patterns and topography. The challenge is that

these processes are often not directly observable and they

are inferred from landscape patterns. Managers face a more

difficult challenge in that they use processes to shape pattern, hoping that the patterns they create will affect other

processes outside of their direct control. For example,

agencies use prescribed fire and thinning to create fuel

breaks intended to alter wildland fire behavior, such that

areas of concern do not burn or else burn at low intensity.

Several of the more challenging topics addressed in

this report involve interactions of pattern and process.

One example is the relation between forest development

(succession) and disturbance. Understanding of how

individual trees, stands, and even complex landscapes

develop in ways that either retard or encourage certain

types of disturbance is evolving. The variety and distribution of old-growth characteristics described in chapter 6

are derived in part by such interactions at multiple scales.

Another example is the interaction of terrestrial disturbances and stream-channel dynamics discussed in chapter

9. Invasive species and disease are additional issues that

invariably include interacting processes affected by pattern.

The challenges of understanding and managing spatial

pattern and processes come to the fore throughout the Plan,

but nowhere more critically than in designating land allocations. The Plan may represent new thinking in resource

management, but its primary mechanism is one of the oldest

tricks in the book—multiple-use management by dominantuse zoning. Because of the Plan, the federal estate can be

viewed as a collage of overlapping land-use designations,

with each designation bringing its own set of standards

and guidelines, and a second set describing which directions take priority. Thus a single landscape can have latesuccessional reserves, key watersheds, riparian reserves,

congressionally reserved lands, adaptive management areas,

and sundry other special use designations. These make up

only the administrative boundaries. The real landscape has

its own tapestry of natural features (topography, soil, rainfall, stream networks, vegetation, fauna, and such) intersecting with human elements (like roads, farms, homes, cities,

and dams). The administrative designations are expected to

dictate human activities that will work with natural processes and existing features to create a desirable landscape

Pileated woodpeckers have excavated many feeding cavities in this old-growth Douglas-fir tree. The ecological

roles of pileated woodpeckers include creating cavities that

many other species use for breeding and hiding; physically

breaking apart snags and down logs, which helps accelerate the return of organic matter into the soil; and creating

wood and bark piles at the base of snags, which are used

by other organisms including salamanders, lizards, and

snakes.

Bruce Marcot
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

56

pattern of ecological attributes. Presumably, this pattern

will constrain natural processes so the desired landscape is

sustained for people to enjoy. The old saw, “it isn’t rocket

science,” certainly applies: rocket science is not this hard!

The issue of land allocation segues naturally into conflicts between active and passive management. Many of

the land designations are primarily proscriptive; that is,

they prohibit activities rather than call for action. As such,

they reflect the precautionary principle implemented as a

restriction on activities that might have negative effects

(chapter 10). To some extent, they also reflect what

Hargrove (1994) calls “environmental therapeutic nihilism,”

a belief that nature is too complex to manage intelligently

and thus should be left alone to heal whatever ails it. Other

tenets of this philosophy are reflected in the Plan and our

assessment of its effectiveness. For example, the discussions

of the benefits of natural disturbance in chapters 6 and 9

echo a parallel adage in human health that “whatever

doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” Although the premises that natural disturbances can be positive and ecosystems have natural recuperative powers have evidentiary

support, experience with the Plan also illustrates the limits

of such truisms. Every problem does not require active

intervention, but some do.

Flexibility Provided by the Plan

The region affected by the Plan is an area of both remarkable similarities and pronounced differences. Traveling

north to south or west to east reveals remarkable gradients

in climate and topography, with resultant ecological variations in forest types and associated species. Equally

remarkable are the socioeconomic differences between

large metropolitan areas like Seattle, Washington, and

Portland, Oregon, and the resource-dependent rural communities scattered throughout. For someone unfamiliar with

the Plan’s genesis and its tie to the northern spotted owl, it

would seem an odd collection of lands to be grouped under

one management plan.

Accommodating the intraregional ecological and

socioeconomic diversity has been a major challenge to

those designing and implementing the Plan. Opinions differ

whether the Plan intended for considerable discretion to

adapt standards and guidelines to provincial or site-specific

differences, but a reluctance or resistance to change default

standards and guidelines is apparent. Flexibility and willingness to use it are essential to matching management

actions to local conditions and improving efficiency.

Exercising discretion is a standard approach to managing

risk. For example, the quickest and safest way to travel

between two points is to match your speed to the road

conditions, not to drive at a constant speed. Flexibility also

can allow for increased experimentation, and hence enhance

opportunities for learning, leading to more efficient and

effective ways to meet plan objectives.

The Plan represents an ambitious, long-term vision for

managing federal lands of the Pacific Northwest, but it remains to be seen how well it can endure. Carrying the vision

forward promises to be a continuing challenge; this requires

building on the successes of the Plan and improving its

shortcomings. Changes in social expectations and values,

administrative policies and procedures, and sundry other

socioeconomic factors will play out in unforeseen ways.

Equally important are the inevitable ecological surprises,

such as large-scale disturbances, invasive species, droughts,

disease, and climate change that will strain ecosystem

resiliency and potentially lead to major shifts in forest

communities. In an era of declining federal funding and

personnel, management agencies will be further challenged

to improve partnerships and collaboration to leverage

limited resources to meet growing societal demands. The

only prediction that can be made with certainty is that

information, knowledge, and creativity will always be

essential ingredients for success.
57

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

References

Davis, R.; Lint, J. 2005. Habitat status and trend. In: Lint, J.,

tech. coord. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years

(1994-2003): status and trends of northern spotted owl

populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR648. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:

21-82.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department

of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Gallo, K.; Lanigan, S.H.; Eldred, P.; Gordon, S.N.; Moyer,

C. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years

(1994-2003): preliminary assessment of the condition

of watersheds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-647. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 133 p.

Hargrove, E.C. 1994. Environmental therapeutic nihilism.

In: Costanza, R.; Norton, B.G.; Haskell, B.D., eds.

Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental

management. Washington, DC: Island Press: 124-131.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

58

Part II
59

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Chapter 5: The Socioeconomic Implications of the Northwest Forest Plan

Richard W. Haynes and Elisabeth Grinspoon

Introduction

Socioeconomic issues are at the root of the controversy that

led to the development of the Northwest Forest Plan (the

Plan) and to the social and economic monitoring questions.

This controversy emerged in the late 1950s and revolved

around three related issues: the role and amount of federal

timber in timber markets; the federal agencies’ obligations

to maintain communities near or among federal timberlands; and the role forests play, especially federal forests,

in regional economies.

These issues were first identified in the mid-1950s

as employment declined in the Pacific Northwest forest

products industry while harvests remained relatively stable

(Smith and Gedney 1965). These trends are shown in figure

5-1a. Jobs per million board feet of harvest declined progressively from 1950 to 1975 (see fig. 5-1b), as the industry

modernized mills, shifted from using mostly private timber

to using a mix of public and private timber, and diversified

to include high-value log export and plywood industries.

During the mid-1980s, trends in jobs per million board feet

reversed and began increasing to levels higher than in the

early 1950s. The reversal in trends was due to changes in

the mix of products and increases in production of logs that

were formerly exported for processing overseas.

By the 1990s, shifting societal environmental values

were changing the objectives for federal forest management1

 to favor increased old growth and habitat protection

1 Forest management is at heart a process of managing a

stand, collection of stands, or a forest to meet the objectives

of the landowners. For private forest land owners,

particularly those interested in financial returns (timber is

considered a capital asset and part of an individual’s

portfolio of investments), their objectives often center on

producing marketable goods, such as timber, hunting

rights, and selected nontimber forest products like floral

greens, in an environmentally sound way. Public forest

land managers typically have broader sets of objectives

including producing both market and nonmarket goods.

over timber management on federal forest lands.2 This shift

was manifest in the Dwyer ruling, the forest conference, and

the development of the Plan (see chapter 1 for more details).

The Plan was adopted with the expectations that it would

settle conflicts over federal forests and lead to a new era in

resource management.

One other notable aspect to this evolving debate was

that social questions became included in public debates

about forest policy. As Clark and others (1999) observed,

the 1993 forest conference held in Portland, Oregon, that

led to the development of the Plan marked the first time that

social scientists were invited to participate in national forest

policy debates. The Plan reflects the inclusion of social

scientists and citizens in its formation since it was guided

by the principles spelled out by President Clinton who

reminded us that forest management is a social problem,

embodying questions of how society chooses among

possible futures.

2 In the United States, retaining some forest lands (71

percent is private and 29 percent is publicly owned) in

public ownership has been one attempt to impose broader

management goals than what might be expected from just

market actions.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

60

Employment

Employment has been a key issue in forest policy discussions since the late 1960s. The issue arose in the mid-1950s

when employment declined in the forest products industry while harvests were relatively stable (Smith and Gedney

1965). Further employment declines in the late 1950s and early 1960s raised policy questions about how to manage

employment instability in a sector that was a major source of income and employment in Washington, Oregon, and

California. The ensuing policy discussions set the context for many policy debates that shaped the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) report (FEMAT 1993) and the Plan (as implemented by the record of decision,

USDA and USDI 1994b). In 1975, Wall and Oswald summarized these policy discussions as:

• Employment instability can cause severe hardships on individuals and families and economic distress in local

and regional economies.

• High rates of timber harvest and product output from Washington, Oregon, and California that have been

sustained by harvest of old growth cannot be sustained in the future.

• Diminished timber availability will result as more alternative uses of forest land are considered.

• Prospects for tightened timber supplies from Washington, Oregon, and California reduce the competitiveness

of locally produced wood products in national and international markets, with potential regional economic

and community effects.

Figure 5-1—(a) Employment and harvest

for Pacific Northwest, (b) jobs per million

board feet of harvest in the Pacific Northwest. SIC 24 = Standard Industrial Classification for lumber and wood products.

Source: 1950-1965 Smith and Gedney

1965, 1966-2002 from Warren 2004.

B

A
61

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Assessment of Social and Economic

Trends Associated With the Plan

The Five Socioeconomic Monitoring

Questions

At the forest conference, President Clinton enumerated five

principles to guide the development of the Plan. These

principles emphasize social and economic components,

including new economic opportunities for year-round,

high-wage, high-skill jobs; protecting the forests for future

generations; legal responsibility; predictable and sustainable levels of timber sales; and collaboration among federal

agencies for the public good (FEMAT 1993: ii).

To measure progress toward implementing the Plan, the

record of decision (ROD) (USDA and USDI 1994b) included

a monitoring and evaluation plan. Three of the questions

it posed focus on socioeconomic issues. The first relates

to rates of using natural resources: Are predictable levels

of timber3

 and nontimber resources available and being

produced? The ROD specifies seven key items to monitor

to answer this question: timber harvest rates, special forest

products (like mushrooms, boughs, and ferns), livestock

grazing, mineral extraction, recreation, scenic quality

(including air quality), and commercial fishing.

The second question relates to rural economies and

communities: Are local communities and economies

experiencing positive or negative changes that may be

associated with federal forest management? The ROD

(USDA and USDI 1994b) specified eight key items to

monitor under this question including demographics,

employment (timber, recreation, forest products, fishing,

mining, and grazing), government revenues (USDA Forest

Service [FS] and USDI Bureau of Land Management [BLM]

receipts), facilities and infrastructure, social service burden

(welfare, poverty, aid to dependent children, and food

stamps), federal assistance programs, (loans and grants to

3 Predictable level of timber is used here in its generic sense

of a known and expected flow of timber.

states, counties, and communities), business trends (cycles,

interest rates, and business openings and closings), and

taxes (property, sales, and business).

The third is a set of questions related to American

Indians and their culture: For those trust resources identified

in treaties with American Indians, what are their conditions

and trends? Are sites of religious and cultural heritage

adequately protected? Do American Indians have access

to and use of forest species, resources, and places important

for cultural, subsistence, or economic reasons, particularly

those identified in treaties? Key monitoring items include

conditions and trends of the American Indian trust resources, effectiveness of the coordination or liaison to

assure protection of religious or cultural heritage sites,

adequacy of access to resources and to the vicinity of

religious or cultural sites.

The ROD (USDA and USDI 1994b) did not explicitly

identify social and economic goals and objectives for the

Plan, but they are described in other Plan-related documents

(Pipkin 1998, Tuchmann and others 1996). The monitoring

team identified five socioeconomic objectives that could be

used to measure progress toward the goals of the Plan.

The objectives are:

1. Produce a predictable and sustainable supply of timber

sales, nontimber forest resources, and recreation opportunities that would help meet the second objective.

2. Maintain the stability of local and regional economies on

a predictable and long-term basis.

3. Minimize adverse effects on jobs by assisting with

economic development and diversification opportunities in

those rural communities most affected by the cutbacks in

federal timber sales.

4. Establish a system of terrestrial and aquatic reserves that

would protect forest values and environmental qualities

associated with late-successional, old-growth, and aquatic

ecosystems.

5. A new approach to federal forest management in which

federal agencies would collaborate and coordinate with one

another.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

62

Evaluating How Well the Plan Performed

In this section we discuss how well federal agencies did in

meeting Plan objectives with review of trends in key

variables. Information from the socioeconomic status and

trends report (Charnley and others 2006a: exec summary)

suggests that federal agencies made limited progress in

meeting the Plan’s socioeconomic objectives. The BLM

was more successful than the FS in providing a stable flow

of socioeconomic benefits to communities in the Plan area

because the budgets of the BLM field units rose over the

past 10 years, while those of the FS fell. Thus the BLM

had resources to invest in new ecosystem management

activities that were aligned with Plan goals such as recreation and restoration that provided local communities with

some socioeconomic benefits. The FS field units, on the

other hand, encountered problems in maintaining basic

management activities. What was expected from each

objective and what actually happened in implementing

the Plan is summarized in table 5-1. It also shows the

differences between the two.

Produce a predictable timber supply—

The general expectation was that the Plan would produce

a reduced, yet predictable supply of timber from the

national forests in the range of the northern spotted owl

(see appendix for scientific names). In 1994, the Northwest

Forest Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (FSEIS) (USDA and USDI 1994a) estimated an

average annual probable sale quantity (PSQ4) of 958

million board feet of timber annually. The FS reduced the

PSQ several times after 1994. Despite the reduced PSQ,

the average annual volume of federal timber produced in

the Plan area during the first decade of Plan implementation (1994-2004) averaged only 34 percent of the expected annual PSQ for the decade. From data collected for

the socioeconomic monitoring report, this difference was

attributed to the time required for agencies to complete

4

 The PSQ is the average annual estimate of the amount of

timber that can be produced in the current decade and in

every succeeding decade into perpetuity.

the surveys and assessments required by the Plan as well

as to prepare sales consistent with the standards and guidelines (USDA and USDI 1994b).

The relations among timber offered, sold, and cut as

well as the uncut volume under contract for the “owl forests”5

 in Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) and Pacific

Northwest Region (Region 6) are shown in figures 5-2a and

5-2b. During the 1990s, national forest harvests (also called

cut) fell 96 percent in Region 6 and 90 percent in Region 5.

These declines followed similar reductions in timber offered

for sale. To complicate the decline in timber volumes, the

quality of timber sold also declined. Evidence of this decline is the change in the relation in stumpage prices for

timber sold by various public agencies. Until the early

1990s, the FS sold a mix of logs for the domestic market.

The price averaged 83 percent of the log mix sold by

Oregon and Washington state agencies. Recent sales not

only are a fraction of former ones but also are of lower

quality, as shown by stumpage prices that average 56 percent of those of the two state agencies.6

The timing of the effects associated with federal harvest

reductions were mitigated somewhat by the uncut volume

under contract (see figs. 5-2a and 5-2b). This uncut volume,

small increases in private timber harvest, and a decline in

log exports all mitigated the effects of the reduction in

federal harvest. The nontimber forest products industry

also experienced reductions in the export markets because

of downward changes starting in 1997 in Asian economies

that have generally reduced prices for some products. In

addition, the labor forces used to gather floral greens have

5 The “owl forests” in the Pacific Northwest Region are the

Gifford-Pinchot, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, Mount Hood,

Olympic, Rogue River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and

Willamette. In the Pacific Southwest Region, the owl forests

include the Klamath, Mendocino, Six Rivers, and ShastaTrinity.

6 This comparison assumes that logging costs and difficulties are similar for both types of sales. If logging costs are

higher for federal sales (because of different requirements),

federal stumpage prices would be lower than for the other

public land agencies. All data are from Warren 2004.
63

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Table 5-1–Expectations versus results (five objectives) regionwide

Differences Differences caused

caused by the by trends unrelated

Objectives Expected Occurred Differences Plan to the Plan

1. Produce Federal agencies Federal Timber output Executive, Variability in timber

predictable offer volumes of agencies did was not legislative, and and nontimber

supply of timber timber at probable not meet produced at judicial actions products markets

sales, nontimber sale quantity (PSQ) average annual predicted reduced the Plan led to changes in

resources, and and produce a PSQs over the volumes. area available for amounts of special

recreation predictable supply decade. Quantity of timber production. forest products sold.

opportunities of timber and other Grazing and special forest Access restrictions Structural shifts in

goods. mineral products and impacted other timber and beef

activity grazing activities. industries affected

declined. opportunities grazing.

Recreation declined.

opportunities

remained

relatively

consistent.

2. Maintain Community well- Regionally, Community For some com- Growth in populacommunity being is maintained changes well-being was munities, decline in tion occurred at

stability and by providing an occurred for not as dependent timber production the same time as

contribute to even flow of goods many com- on providing an caused hardship. the increases in

community from federal forests, munities.Well- even flow of educational attainwell-being including timber, being increased goods from ment. Some comnontimber forest for about 1/3 forests in most munities were more

products, services, of communities, communities as resilient than others.

and jobs. decreased for expected.

another 1/3,

and remained

the same for

the rest.

3. Assist with Where timber sales The number of Loss of agency Greater declines in Agency budgets

long-term econo- could not proceed, timber industry jobs caused a federal workforce declined. Changes

mic development NEAIa

 would jobs lost ex- significant than expected. in other state

and diversifica- provide immediate ceeded expecta- decline in social Restoration activi- programs affected

tion to minimize and long-term tions. NEAI capital in forest ties were not carried economic developadverse impacts assistance to provided less communities. The out as vigorously ment. The continuassociated with minimize adverse help to dis- Jobs-in-the-Woods as planned. ing diversification

job loss impacts associated placed workers program was not as of the U.S. ecowith job loss. than expected. effective as planned. nomy has local

impacts.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

64

Table 5-1–Expectations versus results (five objectives) regionwide (continued)

Differences Differences caused

caused by the by trends unrelated

Objectives Expected Occurred Differences Plan to the Plan

4. Protect forest Reduce litigation, The uses and Gridlock Plan raised public Rural urban environvalues and eco- appeals, gridlock values that increased expectations for mental values

nomic qualities over forest man- urban people because the habitat conservation continue to evolve.

associated with agement actions associate with Plan failed and passive forest Growing emphasis

late-successional by protecting the forests were to engender management. on sustainable

old-growth and uses and values protected. The public trust. forest management.

aquatic eco- that people uses and values

systems associate with that rural people

these ecosystems. associate with

forests were

not protected

as well. All

“old growth”

was not

protected.

5. Promote inter- Enhanced Public engage- Some citizens Regionwide focus Broadening public

agency collabora- collaboration ment in new were disappointed of the Plan dimin- interest in environtion and agency- among federal forums of in the loss of ished the importance mental conservation

citizen collabora- agencies and collaboration local control in of local issues and has increased the

tion in forest between agencies delivered decisions. local constituencies. interest in collaboramanagement and citizens in benefits to tive approaches.

resource communities.

management. Interagency

collaboration

improved.

a

 NEAI = Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative.
65

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Figure 5-2—(a) Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region “owl forests” timber activity (Source: Warren 2004); (b)

Pacific Southwest Region “owl forests” timber activity. In (b), offered and uncut volumes are for calendar year,

not fiscal year.

A

B
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

66

changed significantly (see Lynch and McLain 2003), further

reducing local employment opportunities.

Maintain community stability–

Much of the debate about the details of the Plan were based

on the assumption that reductions in federal timber flows

would reduce local employment opportunities, thereby

negatively affecting socioeconomic well-being and threatening community stability. The impacts were mixed as

some communities adjacent to federal forest land experienced decreases in socioeconomic well-being and others

found ways to adapt to declines in timber production and

other changes in social and economic conditions.7

The problems of communities near FS land were exacerbated by the direct loss of FS jobs. Many FS employees

were active community members serving in various roles.

The loss of employment opportunities (either direct employment in the forest products industry or working for

the FS) negatively affected the capacity of communities to

cope with the social and economic transitions associated

with the Plan. In some areas where timber jobs were lost,

the departure of timber workers caused families to break

apart across generational lines when younger workers had

to leave their homes to find work in other areas. Summaries

of the interviews conducted as part of the socioeconomic

status and trends reports (Charnley and others 2006b)

reveal, after a decade, that grief, anxiety, frustration, and

anger accompanied this change.

Although community well-being has changed at

the regional-scale, it did not change as Plan opponents

claimed it would. In the Plan area, 36 percent of communities enjoyed increases in well-being and 37 percent experienced decreases (see Charnley and others 2006b, for

details). The rest of the communities remained constant.

At the regional scale, some of the potentially negative

economic changes associated with the Plan were obscured

by rapid growth in population. Total population grew at a

7 This increased focus on adaptation and communities in

transition will be discussed later; see Donoghue 2003,

Donoghue and Haynes 2002 for additional details.

Stevenson, Washington, revamped downtown, ready to host

tourists to the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.

Richard Haynes

rate faster than did the rest of the United States. Increases

in educational attainment and household income are also

increasing as poverty is decreasing. These positive changes

may be related to the attractive natural landscapes that draw

new people seeking the natural amenities to the Pacific

Northwest.

Some of the community impacts were mitigated by the

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

Act (2000) (P.L. 106), which provides payments to counties

that historically shared revenues from goods and services

sold from FS land. The Secure Rural Schools Act replaced

past dependence on timber-harvest revenues and has generally mitigated the lost revenues associated with the declines in federal timber harvest in the region (see Phillips

2006).

Assist with economic development–

A key component of the implemented Plan was an explicit

attempt to mitigate the social and economic consequences

of reduced federal timber flows. Much of this effort was

through the Economic Adjustment Initiative, which

focused the agencies on considering their role in the longterm economic development and diversification in the Plan

region. Christensen and others (1999), Kusel (2002), and

Tuchmann and others (1996) described the successes and

shortcomings of the initiative. For some communities, the
67

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Promote collaboration–

In general, enhanced collaboration among federal agencies

was demonstrated by the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO)

and other overarching institutions created by the Plan.

Although interagency collaboration has improved, multiscaled planning has been slower to evolve. Most planning

energy was expended by local land managers struggling to

situate their management activities in the Plan’s context as

a whole. The next generation of FS and BLM unit planning

is getting underway offering opportunities to strengthern

midscale planning activities that can help explain the location and timing of specific management practices.

Collaboration between federal agencies and local

communities initially showed promise. Their potential for

success, however, was diminished when federal officials

were required to withdraw temporarily because of the adjudication and the chartering process associated with the

1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA]. Even

though the withdrawal of federal participants was temporary, trust in collaborative processes seems to have been

damaged.

Some evidence was shown toward increasingly positive

and more frequent collaboration between American Indian

and federal land managers. Also provincial advisory committees have advanced interagency collaboration and

coordination providing a forum for ongoing multiparty

discussions of forest management issues. These and other

types of discussions seem not to have met expectations

for engaging the public in new forms of collaboration

that deliver benefits to communities. Mixed results from

collaboration has put public trust of land managers at risk.

Tribal

Relations between tribes and federal land management

agencies improved as a result of the Plan. The ROD (USDA

and USDI 1994b) provides “a higher level of protection for

American Indian trust resources on public lands than the

forest plans that it amends, and does not impair or restrict

the treaties or rights of the tribes.” These higher rates of

protection are consistent with efforts in the 1990s to build

initiative provided economic assistance that went far

beyond face value of the dollars it provided. Some communities were able to use Rural Community Assistance

grants to leverage money from other sources. The way

that the initiative was administered also facilitated new

collaborative relations to form between the agency and

communities.

Efforts to diversify the economies of the Pacific Northwest were largely implemented through various state

programs, but outcomes have been difficult to determine given the economic growth and diversification of

the United States and regional economies. A decade later,

strategies for economic development have evolved that

challenge the earlier approaches of attempting to replace

lost wood product manufacturing jobs with other manufacturing jobs. Economic development strategies now consider

growing all sectors of functional economies.

Protect forest values—

The Plan was a product of the changing scientific and legal

basis for managing forests for habitat conservation goals,

but it may not have adequately considered the increasing

interest in forest protection among the American public.

These changing societal values such as those revealed in

the evolving definitions of old growth, as well as its use

in increasingly more generic form, contributes to increased

gridlock on federal timberlands. Recent surveys indicate

the American public generally favors increased protection of federal lands more than do federal land managers,

who are responsible for the management of these lands

(Kennedy and others 2005, Shields and others 2002,

Taylor 2002).

Surveys show that these values are relatively the same

for both urban and rural residents with the exception of

differences in who controls decisions. Rural residents

want to be able to control decisions in their own area,

whereas urban residents are more willing to rely on more

central decisionmaking and control. The monitoring results

reveal this difference where a majority of the interviewees

expressed concern over their loss of influence in decisionmaking in activities that affect their local situation.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

68

effective processes for government-to-government relations

with American Indian tribal governments.8 They also

underlie the three monitoring questions addressed in the

pilot study undertaken in 2000. The questions were:

• How well and to what degree is government-togovernment consultation being conducted under

the Plan?

• Have the goals and objectives of the consultation

been achieved?

• Is the consultation occurring because of effects on

resources of tribal interest on federal lands or trust

resources on tribal lands?

“effective consultation,” there have been improved relations among tribes and federal agencies. The interviews also

revealed that in some of the case-study communities, the

tribes played a significant role in economic development as

they built tribal government infrastructure or attempted to

diversify economic opportunities for tribal members.

On the Olympic National Forest, for example, collaboration between the Quinault Indian Nation and the forest

has been high during the last decade. The Plan’s stress on

the importance of watershed assessments has prompted

interaction and collaboration. A recent land transfer and

sharing of revenues generated from another parcel of land

also produced legal and administrative ties between the

agency and the Quinault Indian Nation that are fueling

collaborative efforts.

Tribal communities, like other communities, had

members who worked in the timber industry as loggers and

mill workers and who lost their jobs in the early 1980s

when the regional timber industry began to decline. Interviewed community members believed that the Plan did not

cause the decline in the local timber industry, but exacerbated already deteriorating conditions. The flow of socioeconomic benefits to some tribal communities around

federal lands declined between 1990 and 2002, however,

and strategies to mitigate the losses did not provide substantial benefits.

Are Plan Assumptions and Approaches

Still Valid?

Sustainability

One of the key assumptions underlying the Plan was that it

would promote sustainable resource flows and conditions.

The basis for our understanding of sustainability, however,

has changed over the last decade. On public lands, we

progressed from forest regulation based on sustained

yield forestry to the adoption of ecosystem management

approaches that seek balance among biophysical and

socioeconomic goals (see Haynes and others 1996, USDA

FS 2005). At broad scale for all forest lands, we saw greater

interest in understanding how individual actions contribute

To provide for the well-being of tribal members, the Coquille

Indian Tribe converted a former Weyerhaeuser mill to a casino in

Coos Bay, Oregon.

Judy Mikowski

Both the pilot study and various interviews included

in the socioeconomic monitoring efforts revealed that

although there are numerous definitions of “consultation”

and significant differences of opinion as to what constitutes

8 Two examples of such efforts were the executive

memorandum on government-to-government relations

with American Indian tribal governments. The White

House, Office of the Press Secretary (April 29, 1994) and

Executive Order 13175—Consultation and coordination

with Indian tribal governments Federal Register 65, no.

218. (November 9, 2000). In addition, the tribal mentoring

module focused on how Plan implementation improved the

effectiveness of the federal-tribal relationship (see Stuart

and Martine 2006).
69

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

to progress toward achieving sustainable forest management.9

 For private forest lands and especially those owned

by forest industry, we have seen the integration of sustainability into their management systems using certification

9

 The United States is a signatory to the Montréal Process

Criteria and Indicators (Montréal Process Working Group

1998) for Sustainable Forest Management. The Montréal

Process includes seven criteria and 67 indicators and has

been used to engage agencies, publics, and advocacy

groups in a discussion of what the available data can tell

about the status, condition, and trends in U.S. forests (see

USDA FS 2004 for more details).

Criteria for Sustainability

The Montréal Process includes seven criteria. Of these, two focus on social and economic issues. Criterion 6 addresses

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of societies.

Criterion 7 speaks to the legal, institutional, and economic framework for conservation and sustainable management.

Within these two criteria are many indicators applicable to measuring how well the Plan met its goals as well as

progress toward sustainability.

In terms of Criterion 6, the Plan was successful in maintaining and enhancing some long-term socioeconomic

benefits. Specifically, the Plan did not meet its goals for timber production. Recreation opportunities, on the other

hand, remained relatively constant. Investment in the forest sector declined sharply. Direct employment in the forest

sector also declined. Many communities were viable and adaptable to changing economic conditions, whereas others

were not. In some cases, the Plan helped federal agencies meet cultural, social, and spiritual needs.

With respect to Criterion 7, the legal framework (laws, regulations, and guidelines) of the federal government and

the Forest Service supported the sustainability goals of the Plan for the most part. On occasion, however, the

sustainability goals were hindered by the Plan. For example, the production of a predictable supply of timber was

hindered by complicated and overlapping laws and regulations. The Plan institutionalized a framework that supported

and enhanced forest and cross-sectoral planning. Finally, the Plan did establish a monitoring program to help measure

progress toward achieving broad-scale land management goals.

Although the Plan was considered sustainable when developed in 1994, it would not be judged that way today

because today’s definition of sustainability includes a focus on increasing economic prosperity and promoting social

justice.*

*

As used here, justice deals with a range of concerns including equitable power sharing in

decisionmaking, respect for property rights of indigenous communities, alleviation of poverty,

and institutional capacity to support the conservation and sustainable management of forests.

programs (such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and

the Forest Stewardship Council, see Johnson and Walck

2004).

In today’s context, elements of the Plan are consistent

with components of approaches to sustainable forest management. One aspect has been the emphasis in the Plan on

using a range of forums for collaboration. Another aspect

has been the consideration of using federal land to achieve

habitat conservation goals and to reduce regulatory risks

for private landowners. Selecting among the array of social,

economic, and institutional indicators in the Montréal

Process would be one approach for monitoring how well the

Plan met its goals as well as progress toward sustainability.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

70

Community Dependency and Adaptability

The Plan’s socioeconomic goals assumed that there was a

“need for a sustainable supply of timber and other forest

products that will help maintain the stability of local and

regional economies” (USDA and USDI 1994b). These goals

were quickly extended to include the stability of communities—especially rural communities—in the northern spotted

owl region.

During the 1980s, the debates surrounding community

stability broadened to include discussion of how communities change and the “social contract” between land management agencies and communities. The scientists and interested publics endeavored to assess the extent to which the

federal government is obligated by “legal” authority to

recognize the standing of members of local communities.

Their findings, however, suggested that they could make

stronger arguments for the “moral” authority. These arguments were derived from the repeated commitments made

to local communities in forest plans and the long-standing

policies recognizing the rights of those who depend on

federal forest land for their livelihood. These past commitments were embodied in forest-level plans developed in

the 1980s.

In the past two decades, however, the terms used to

depict communities with distinct connections to forest

resources have evolved: community stability, forest dependence, forest-based, community capacity, community

resiliency, and now with the Montréal Process, community

viability and adaptability. This evolution of terms shows

the evolving emphasis on the complex, dynamic, and

interrelated aspects of rural communities and the natural

resources that surround them. The earliest terms dealt with

the limits between improved forest management and stable

communities achieved through stable employment. By the

late 1980s, concern was raised about the lack of a clear

definition of stability and how it might be measured (see

Richardson 1996) but the term stability continued to

endure in policy debates. A number of efforts have sought

alternative terms (see Donoghue and Haynes 2002 for a

brief summary) and much interest has currently been

focused around concepts like resiliency, capacity, and

adaptability.

These new concepts emphasize the ability of a community (defined by a sense of place, organization, or structure)

to take advantage of opportunities and deal with change

(Doak and Kusel 1996, Harris and others 2000). They are

dynamic, just like external factors that might induce change

in a community. The evolution of terms suggests that connectivity to broad regional economies, community cohesiveness and place attachment, and civic leadership are

greater factors in determining community viability and

adaptability than are factors related to employment.

Concurrent with discussions about stability and

well-being have been discussions about the term “forest

dependence.” Dependence was initially defined by employment in forest product production, but various research

studies suggest that communities are more complex than

traditional measurements would imply (see Haynes and

others 1996). Most communities have mixed economies,

and their vitality is often linked to factors other than

commodity production. Many of the communities thought

of as timber dependent have been confronted with economically significant challenges, such as mill closures, and they

have displayed resilient behavior dealing with change.

Arguments for redefining forest dependence emphasized

that the economic ties that some communities have to

forests are not wood product-based, but in recreation and

other amenities (Kusel 1996). Another concern was that the

term “forest dependence” did not reflect the local living

traditions and sense of place held by many communities

(Kusel 1996). This broader connotation is often what is

implied by the term forest-based.

Increased Collaboration

A third underlying assumption was that increased collaboration with diverse stakeholder groups would lead to a

consensus (or greater trust) that will allow for actions that

can please a wider range of constituents. The past decade
71

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

has seen improvements in the way in which stakeholders

are involved in discussions of forest management decisions.

Among the changes is an appreciation that even when

people find forest practices acceptable, their judgments

are almost always provisional rather than absolute or final

(Stankey and others 2003a). These judgments and their

durability are affected by people’s trust in managers, their

personal experience with place, their ideas about what

“natural” is, the degree of risk seen in management actions,

and people’s reliance on their values or experiential

knowledge in addition to scientific knowledge. This

research suggests that even management decisions and

actions supported by sound science will ultimately fail if

social acceptance is lacking. The research also suggests

several strategies to gain public acceptance (Shindler and

others 2002):

• Treat social acceptability as a process, rather than

an end product.

• Develop organizational capacity to respond to

public concerns.

• Approach trust-building as the central long-term

goal of effective public process.

• Provide leadership to develop a shared understanding of forest conditions and practices.

• Focus on the larger context within which forest

landscapes are managed, including risks and

uncertainties.

In this context, forest management involves managing

places that have multiple meanings to different stakeholders. Place-based management requires managers to use

processes such as multiparty negotiation and collaboration

to give people the chance to express, negotiate, and transform meanings about places. Approaches that recognize the

significance of place meanings take time, but they can result in reducing conflicts over resource management saving

time in the long run.

There is another aspect to collaboration: in an era of

declining budgets, the FS is increasingly relying on partnerships with groups that share similar resource management goals. The Plan area has an extensive but informally

linked network of staff working in the partnership arena.

This broad network provides a tremendous asset by enhancing the effectiveness and delivery of regional programs of

work. The paradox is that budget declines serve as an

incentive for expansion of collaborative processes, but

when these declines reduce agency capacity, they may also

jeopardize collaborative efforts.

Federal Lands and Private Lands

The Plan’s adoption altered the role that federal and private

lands played in providing a broad array of environmental

services and goods expected by the public. Adopting the

Plan for federal lands was assumed to reduce pressure for

stringent regulations for habitat conservation on private

timberlands. In many senses, this assumption was correct,

and the experience in the Pacific Northwest demonstrates

how ecosystem management approaches can be operationalized. The experience has also demonstrated the role of

federal (or public) timberlands in the context of all timberlands, in providing the array of environmental services and

goods the public expects.

A wide diversity of ownerships characterizes the

west side of the Pacific Northwest (table 5-2). Unlike most

other regions in the United States, forest ownerships in the

Pacific Northwest tend to be made up of large and relatively

contiguous blocks of timberland leading to an interest in

landscape-scale management approaches. The wide diversity of ownerships, public and private, has led to a patchwork mosaic of management regimes spread across the

landscape. The variety of management regimes stems in part

from differences in individual landowner objectives, market

conditions, biophysical productivity, and regulatory conditions within different parts of the region (see Haynes and

others 2003 for a summary of management regimes by

owner).

The importance of considering the potential of forests

to produce a broad array of environmental services and

goods has evolved, and many of these services and goods

are thought to be directly related to structural condition.

The Pacific Northwest timberland base is structurally

diverse and thought to be capable of producing a wide
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

72

array of environmental services and goods. Looking

broadly, about half of the timberland base is less than

40 years old and half is more than 40 years old with 30 percent older than 80 years (these data are not available for the

other public ownership class that includes the BLM) (Zhou

and others 2005). The complementary nature of resource

conditions and the contributions of various landowners are

shown in figure 5-3, which illustrates the relative propensity

of private timberland owners to provide early- and mid-seral

conditions whereas older stands are in the national forests.

Data at this resolution mask concerns about the spatial

juxtaposition of different seral stages, but some of these

concerns lack scientific rigor in their specification. The

patchwork mosaic of management regimes (resulting from

the diversity of land ownership objectives) spread across

the landscape adds complexity to the various seral stages so

that any stage is composed of relatively uniform to highly

fragmented stands.

The implication of a broader look at forest land conditions is that the federal lands by themselves may not meet

the goals of habitat conservation or the Montréal Process

for sustainable forest management. All forest lands make a

contribution toward achieving these broader societal goals.

The Plan was an attempt to manage risks to late-successional and old-growth-related species and to prevent further

listings that might affect private and other public timberlands; in that sense the Plan succeeded.

The Timber Industry Would Survive

The timber industry was assumed to survive under the Plan

and to adapt to changes in federal harvest flows. In general,

it has, although with some painful adjustments. Changes in

the global forest products industry have helped mitigate

some of the effects ascribed to the decline of federal harvest in the Plan area. The harvest decline in the Pacific

Northwest (roughly 5 billion board feet) was offset by a

combination of factors including harvest increases on

private timberlands, increases in harvest in other regions

particularly the U.S. South and the interior Canadian

Forests provide a variety of products including trailing

blackberries, here being collected for personal use.

Table 5-2—Forest land area in the United States Pacific Northwest west side, 1997

National Other Forest Nonindustrial

Land class Total forest public industry private

Million acres

Nonreserved

timberland 23.297 7.134 4.572 6.837 4.755

Other .692 .040 .173 .122 .357

Reserved 3.281 1.738 1.539 — .004

Nonwilderness (.174) — — —

Wilderness (1.564) — — —

Total forest land 27.270 8.912 6.283 6.960 5.115

— = No acres assigned to these land classes. Totals may not add because of rounding. Judy Mikowski
73

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Provinces.10 In addition, the collapse of the log export

market from the Pacific Northwest (log exports deceased

during the 1990s by more than 2 billion board feet, log

scale) and the loss of other export markets helped mitigate

the effects (see Haynes 2003 for a general discussion).

Improving inventory conditions in the U.S. South and

the loss of Pacific Rim export markets all contributed to

higher domestic production, mitigating any effects on consumers. These effects were always considered relatively

small (estimated at $13 per household, FEMAT 1993). The

U.S. total roundwood consumption increased by 4.5 percent

during the past decade (11.6 percent for softwoods and -8.2

percent for hardwoods [Howard 2003]).

10 These shifts validated the warnings of those who said that

federal protection for the spotted owl would shift the

environmental consequences elsewhere. Economists call

these types of effects “unintended consequences” and often

argue that they demonstate policy failures in the sense of

not having considered the full range of possible effects.

Growing use of softwood lumber in residential construction challenges producers to meet market demands while using environmentally responsible practices that ensure the future of forests

(this lumber carries the SFI [sustainable forestry initiative] logo).

Richard Haynes

Figure 5-3—Age class distribution by ownership for softwood forest types on timberland area for the Douglas-fir

region (western Oregon and Washington) for 2000. Source: Haynes and others 2003.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

74

In the United States, a transition is underway where,

after 2015, most softwood timber will be harvested from

managed stands (see the discussion on pages 121-123 in

Haynes 2003). Most of these managed stands are on private

timberlands, mostly in the U.S. South and in the Douglasfir region (west side of the Pacific Northwest). In part, this

transition from harvesting in natural stands to harvesting

in managed stands has mitigated some of the harvest

reductions on public lands. The transition will further

reduce the role that federal timber plays in the U.S. forest

situation.

The timber industry in the Douglas-fir region restructured during the 1990s, evolving into a highly efficient but

less product-diverse industry, focusing on lumber production primarily for the domestic market and using timber

from private timberlands (see Barbour and others 2003,

Haynes and Fight 2004). As such, it focuses on 14- to 20-

inch logs. Currently, there is little capacity capable of

handling logs over 24 inches in diameter. An evolving

small-log industry uses logs between 4.5 and 10 inches

small-end diameter. Mills themselves are changing with

the development of both very large mills (producing

300,000 to 400,000 board feet per shift) and specialty

mills, some of which are relatively small (less than 50,000

board feet per shift).

It is still a large industry operating at a vast scale.

In 2002, 13.44 billion board feet of lumber was produced

in Washington, Oregon, and California. This rate of production required 1.68 billion cubic feet of logs or 1.4 million

truckloads. The basic data for both the industry and example mill sizes are shown in table 5-3. The industry has

developed in an integrated fashion to use both roundwood and residues (45 percent of each log ends up as mill

residues). Until the early 1990s, the industry in the three

states relied on federal timber for roughly 38 percent of

their logs.11 These logs came from federal timber sales that

11After the adoption of the Plan, this proportion dropped to

15 percent.

were sold by using a mix of oral and sealed bidding. The

FS sold on a scale basis, and the BLM mostly sold on a

lump scale basis. Timber sales were appraised to various

end markets, mostly sawtimber, and included the value of

residue products.

During the past decade, many of the mills have moved.

In the past they were dispersed across the region, and those

depending on federal timber were generally less than 50

miles from where they bought timber. In the past decade,

the surviving mills (and new mills) have located along main

transportation corridors and close to the private timberlands

where they procure timber. Now some rural areas, although

timber dependent, have little local forest products manufacturing, and logs harvested in the area are shipped to manufacturing centers farther away (resulting in slightly lower

stumpage prices than in the past) and reduced employment

in spite of relatively high harvests.

The recent changes in the forest products industry have

left some land managers wondering if local timber industry

infrastructure can be maintained or reestablished where it

has closed during the last decade. To help frame this issue,

table 5-3 illustrates how much wood (logs) is needed to

sustain three typical types of mills in western Oregon and

Washington. A medium-size mill would need 16 truckloads

of logs for each shift on each operating day. The production at this mill would generate enough chips to fill 13 chip

vans every 2 days, which would need to be disposed of to

residue-based manufacturing. In western Washington and

northern Oregon, a pulp and paper industry is supported

almost entirely from these residues. In the eastern and

southern extremes of the northern spotted owl region,

however, these residue-based industries are less available,

which means that timber sales will depend on their sawlog

components to be sellable because disposing of chips

would be costly. The challenge to land managers is sustaining forest operations that can provide the magnitudes of log

flows illustrated in table 5-3.
75

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Changing Societal Values and Definitions of Old

Growth

The Plan’s adoption implied some consensus in societal

values. The evolution of the debate over old growth

illustrates how tentative this assumption has proven to be.

The term “old growth” has sparked debate ever since

scientists began to modify the timber-inventory-based

definitions in the early 1980s. The divergent perspectives

on old growth reflect differences that stem from differing

social perspectives and political agendas. Old growth

became a household word in the 1990s during the northern spotted owl debates, which captured the attention of

Americans across the country. At opposite ends of the

spectrum are forest managers and environmentalists. Some

environmentalists may view old-growth as pristine wilderness and ancient forests that are home to precious and

endangered species and that have spiritual values. Some

forest managers see old-growth forests as valuable timber

that may be wasted.

Increased knowledge about Pacific Northwest forests

has produced more definitions of old growth. Some scientists have indexed forest structural conditions along a

continuum, rather than pigeonholing forests into simple

categories of old growth or not. These scientists prefer a

multifeatured approach to locating stands on a continuum

of structural and compositional complexity and diversity.

These definitions differ in the age assigned to old-growth

stands as well as in the use of ecosystem processes and

forest structure and composition to describe old-growth.

In 1986, the FS Old-Growth Definition Task Group

described Douglas-fir old-growth forests as those with two

or more tree species with a wide range of ages and tree sizes;

six to eight Douglas-fir or other coniferous trees per acre at

least 30 inches in diameter or at least 200 years old; a multilayered forest canopy; two to four snags per acre at least 20

inches in diameter and at least 15 feet tall; at least 10 tons

per acre of fallen logs, including some at least 24 inches in

Table 5-3—Wood requirements for one small, one medium, and one large sawmill and for the total

industry, 2002

Small Medium Large Total

Units of measure sawmill sawmill sawmill industry

Production/shift Thousand board 50 150 400

feet, lumber scale

Annual 1 shift Million board feet, 12.5 37.5 100 13,436

productiona lumber scale

Chip, sawdust Million cubic feet .7 2.1 5.6 755.8

productionb

Annual log Million board feet, 6.25 18.75 50 6,718

requirementsc log scale

Annual log Million cubic feet 1.56 4.67 12.5 1,679.5

requirementsd

Log truckloadse 1,302 3,906 10,417 1,399,583

per year

Chip vans per yearf 549 1,648 4,394 590,449

a

 Annual production is computed assuming 250 operating days.

b

 Chip production computed as 45 percent of log input volume (in cubic feet).

c

 Computed assuming an overrun of 2 (there are 2 board feet of lumber scale for every board foot of log scale [Scribner

scale]).

d

 Cubic volume computed assuming 4 board feet (log scale) per cubic foot.

e

 Computed assuming 1,200 cubic feet of logs per truckload.

f

 Computed assuming 16 units per truckload and there are 2.5 cubic feet of pulp chips per cubic foot of solid wood.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

76

diameter and 50 feet long (Old-Growth Definition Task

Group 1986).

FEMAT (1993) and the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS

(USDA and USDI 1994a) used a different definition: oldgrowth forest stands are usually at least 180 to 220 years

old with moderate-to-high canopy closure; a multilayered,

multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees;

high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and

other indicators of old and decaying wood; numerous large

snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large

logs on the ground.

In 2000, the National Research Council’s Committee on

Environmental Issues (2000: 45) in Pacific Northwest Forest

Management defines old-growth forests as those that support assemblages of plants and animals, environmental

conditions, and ecological processes not found in younger

(less than 100 to 250 years, depending on species) forests.

In current political debates, old growth in the Douglasfir region is being defined as forests of natural origin older

than 120 years and trees larger than 21 inches in diameter.

These definitions are likely to be legislated in forthcoming

laws and regulations. Little scientific basis exists for such

laws, but they reflect current societal values about cutting

green timber on federal lands. The laws also represent a

diminishing role of scientists in contributing to these

definitions.

Governance of Forest Management Would

Change

The Plan recognizes how the changing public appreciation

of the array of services and goods provided by forests calls

for a different way to govern forest management actions. In

this context, governance is defined as exercising authority

over actions, and it has evolved in the Pacific Northwest

from being market based to being a mix of market and

regulatory functions (see Haynes and others 2003 for an

expanded discussion). For federal forest lands, forest planning has been developed to implement forest management.

It includes formal processes, broad management objectives,

and increased stakeholder participation. Management on

private forest lands is determined by a mix of market and

regulatory functions. Different regulations (for example,

state forest practice acts) influence both the design and

applications of forest management practices.

For the most part, these regulations reflect a manifestation of public concerns about forest lands or forest conditions. These growing public concerns have long been a

determinant of forest policies, and since the early 1990s,

forest policy has increasingly been internationalized (see

the discussion on pages 173-179 in Haynes 2003) in the

context of both economic globalization and sustainable

development. Currently, much of the international debate

deals with different suggestions about the need to supplement market-determined actions with processes that try

to find an equilibrium among interests advocating environmental protection, employment that contributes to

economic prosperity, public access, and social justice (see

Andersson and others 2004 for a variety of perspectives on

these issues).

The Plan’s adoption for federal lands is a unique step

in this evolution of shifting societal expectations for forest

management. It takes an interagency approach and includes

developing different institutions to supplement the existing

mix of market and regulatory processes already present in

the region. These institutions included a mix of formal and

informal groups and organizations. Among the federal land

management and regulatory agencies, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) and the REO were

established to oversee the implementation of the Plan.

The role of the RIEC has expanded to provide a forum for

discussing emerging problems beyond just implementing

the Plan.

At the same time, implementing the Plan included

developing several collaborative efforts whose success

rested on involving both formal and informal groups. For

example, the success of the adaptive management areas

(AMAs) depended on developing an interchange among

stakeholder (and local community) groups around specific

land management actions in a specific place (see Charnley

and others 2006b; Stankey and others 2003b). For the most
77

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

part, developing effective collaboration was difficult

because sufficient experimentation on the AMAs was

lacking and little attention was paid to stakeholder engagement. Where successes were found, they depended on early

engagement of stakeholders in the assessment part of

planning and on fully involving them with the goal of

gaining social acceptability for designed treatments. In

some selected cases, engagement with informal groups led

to partnerships that were able to accomplish specific actions

collaboratively.

Another institution that was established in the ROD

(USDA and USDI 1994b) was the provincial advisory

committees that provided opportunities for coordination

and information exchange at the province scale. The

successes of these as effective institutions were mixed, but

they have provided an opportunity to engage other less

formal organizations such as watershed councils. In 2000,

resource advisory committees (RACs) were established;

these are more formal organizations in both how they are

composed and how they function. The RACs are being

effective in shaping ecosystem management decisions

given their role in recommending (under Title II of the 2000

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

Act) road maintenance, watershed restoration, and hazardous fuels reduction projects. These organizations have been

less successful in contributing to governance processes that

influence all forest lands in the region.

Although not a formal institution, but one that has

played a key role, stumpage markets during the 1990s have

been highly volatile as landowners and forest products

producers have adjusted to the reductions in federal timber

flows (see Warren 2004, for various data series, and Haynes

2003 for a discussion of regional and national markets

adjustments). Since the mid-1990s, stumpage prices have

been either declining or stable, suggesting lower financial

returns to various forestry practices. These lower prices may

lead the many landowners, each with their own objectives,

to respond in ways not supportive of sustainable forest

management. As this happens, advocates for improved forest management (like the RIEC and the regulatory agencies)

may find themselves supporting more regulation to ensure

progress toward sustainable forest management across a

broader number of forest land acres.

The Plan is one of the few experiments in developing

an overarching framework for governing forest land management. It offers several lessons about how to develop

alternative governance approaches than just depending on

an uncoordinated mix of market and regulatory approaches.

As societal expectations evolve for maintaining sustainable

forest lands, overarching institutions like a RIEC and REO

and others that may be developed can respond to and

coordinate legal frameworks, decisionmaking processes,

landowner objectives, and forest and land-use policies. The

experience in the Pacific Northwest suggests that developing these overarching institutions will be difficult given the

diversity in landowner objectives, the propensity for rapid

changes in societal values, and the difficulty of power

sharing in a pluralistic society.

Treatment of Uncertainty

The original design of FEMAT did not address human

prospectives of uncertainty and risk. From the past decade

we now have a better understanding that these involve risk

perceptions and attitudes (see Haynes and Cleaves 1999).

Often, the public does not perceive risks in the same way

that scientists or managers describe risks. The public often

treats risks and uncertainy in a generic fashion where scientists tend to separate risks from uncertainty trying to predict

the likelihood of some events with mathematical precision.

For example, fire risks in the interior Columbia Basin can be

computed as 1 percent per year (average number of acres

burned per year divided by the number of forest land acres).

Other events are too uncertain to reduce to a mathematical

expression. Making decisions in these two cases takes

different approaches, but it also depends on the attitudes of

decisionmakers toward risk. The human aspect of assessing

uncertainties is how individuals express their risk attitudes;

that is, the extent to which an individual seeks or avoids

risks. For example, surveys of forest supervisors show

them to be risk averse (Kennedy and others 2005). In
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

78

risky situations they tend to choose the least risky direction. For example, in fighting a fire they are likely to

overreact (adding resources) to increase the likelihood that

the fire is controlled.

Finally, there has been some evolution in thinking

about the tradeoffs of ambiguous gains in environmental

conditions for nearly certain economic losses. The increased discussions during the 1990s stimuated largely

by concerns around sustainable development have led to

a greater appreciation that managing ecosystems involves

managing a set of common property goods and services.

This raises two issues. First are the traditional economic

arguments about how common property is abused rather

than protected. Second, the champions of civic society

argue for greater attention for common goods.

In this context, the Plan emphasizes viewing forest

management decisions as involving broader environmental

problems dealing with complex tradeoffs (or compatibility)

among a broad set of environmental values including timber, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, biological diversity, water

flows, ecological integrity, and recreation. As such, it considers ecosystems as a set of commons whose goods and

services are fairly available to anyone. Hardin (1968) laid

out the common property issues involved in management

in his classic article “The Tragedy of the Commons.” The

essence of his argument was that if no one held property

right to various goods and services, then there was no incentive to manage the resource to sustain production but

rather to capture as much of the value as quickly as possible

before others seized the various goods and services.

In addition to the economic implications, there is also

a role for governance in assigning property rights to sustain

various environmental services and goods. Here advocates

for the role of civic society have pushed agendas that

essentially attempt to assign property rights to various

stakeholder groups who have traditionally been marginalized in market-based approaches to resource allocation

and management. The Plan is an example of habitat and

old-growth values being assigned greater worth than

production forestry values.

Considerations

The political compromise leading to the Plan linked timber production on federal lands with jobs and community

well-being. Since implementing the Plan, the debate has

been generalized to imply that increased environmental

protection threatens jobs and, therefore, community wellbeing. These issues framed the socioeconomic monitoring

questions derived in part from President Clinton’s five

principles.

The socioeconomic monitoring effort associated with

the implementation of the Plan was an enormous accomplishment. For the first time, we have information about the

effectiveness of a broad-scale forest management decision

in terms of the key underlying questions. In general, the

Plan enabled federal agencies to resume timber harvests. In

terms of output, timber sale expectations were not met and

there was a mix of effects on grazing and mineral activities

and for recreation opportunities. Comminities changed

across the region, and although it is difficult to disentangle

changes caused by the Plan from other changes, there are

still individuals who express a sense of lost social and

economic opportunities. The mitigation activities that

attempted to minimize adverse impacts on economic

well-being by assisting with economic development and

diversification opportunities had generally positive effects.

Reductions in federal harvests led to the closure of modern

mills like the Stevenson, Washington, co-op plywood mill

with the attendant loss of jobs and personal wealth.
79

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

The overall growth in regional economies reduced many

of the effects of reductions in federal timber flows. But

attempts in the economic adjustment initiative to provide

displaced workers with alternative forest-based jobs were

less successful than expected (this experience is similar to

that in the Redwood Park experience [see Deforest 1999]).

The Plan engendered a new discussion among forest

management advocates about what broad environmental

values should be protected for future generations. These

include protecting old-growth-related species and many

of the uses and values important to urban people. The monitoring showed that the uses and values that rural people

associate with forests were not protected to the same extent.

The Plan did engender considerable new collaboration

between and among the federal agencies and public

engagement in new forums.

This last decade has seen a broadening of societal concerns about forest management. Concerns used to focus on

species conservation; now the emphasis is on achieving

sustainable forest management across all forest lands.

Social acceptance of forest management activites has also

shifted, suggesting the importance of building and maintaining trust with citizens. Concern about community dependency has shifted to concern about community adaptability. The Plan has also demonstrated the importance of

strengthening governance when implementing broad-scale

forest management.

References

Andersson, F.; Birot, Y.; Päivinen, R., eds. 2004. Towards

the sustainable use of Europe’s forests—forest ecosystem and landscape research: scientific challenges and

opportunities. EFI Proceedings No. 49. Joensuu,

Finland. 322 p.

Barbour, R.J.; Marshall, D.D.; Lowell, E.C. 2003. Managing for wood quality. In: Monserud, R.A.; Haynes, R.W.;

Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible forest management.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 299-336. Chap. 11.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.;

Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.;

Phillips, R.H.; Tobe, L. 2006a. Socioeconomic

monitoring results. Volume I: Key findings. In:

Charnley, S., tech. ed. Northwest Forest Plan—the first

10 years (1994-2003): socioeconomic monitoring

results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 26 p.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.;

Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.;

Phillips, R.H.; Tobe, L. 2006b. Socioeconomic

monitoring results. Volume III: Rural communities and

economies. In: Charnley, S., tech. ed. Northwest Forest

Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): socioeconomic

monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 206 p.

Christensen, H.H.; Raettig, T.L.; Sommers, P., tech. eds.

1999. Northwest Forest Plan: outcomes and lessons

learned from the Northwest economic adjustment

initiative. Proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-484.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 98 p.

Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H.; Shannon, M.A. 1999. The

social component of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. In: Cordell, H.K.;

Bergstrom, J.C., eds. Integrating social sciences with

ecosystem management: human dimensions in assessment, policy, and management. Champaign, IL:

Sagamore Publishing: 239-264.

DeForest, C. 1999. Watershed restoration, jobs-in-thewoods, and community assistance: Redwood National

Park precedents and the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-449. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 31 p.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

80

Doak, S.C.; Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent

communities. Part 2: A social assessment. In: Sierra

Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress—

assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: University of California, Centers for

Water and Wildland Resources: 375-402. Vol 2. Part 2.

Donoghue, E.M. 2003. Delimiting communities in the

Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-570.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Donoghue, E.M.; Haynes, R.W. 2002. Assessing the

viability and adaptability of Oregon communities.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-549. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 11 p.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 [FACA]; Act

of October 6, 1972; Stat. 77-; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department

of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science.

162: 1243-1248.

Harris, C.C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Decker, D.

2000. Rural communities in the inland Northwest: an

assessment of small communities in the interior and

upper Columbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-477. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

120 p. (Quigley, T.M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Haynes, R.; Cleaves, D. 1999. Uncertainty, risk, and

ecosystem management. In: Sexton, W.T.; Malk, A.J.;

Szaro, R.C.; Johnson, N.C., eds. Ecological stewardship.

A common reference for ecosystem management.

Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science:

413-429. Vol. 3.

Haynes, R.W., tech. coord. 2003. An analysis of the timber

situation in the United States: 1952-2050. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-560. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 254 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Adams, D.M.; Mills, J.R. 2003. Contemporary management regimes in the Pacific Northwest:

balancing biophysical and economic concerns. In:

Monserud, R.A.; Haynes, R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds.

Compatible forest management. Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 267-296.

Chap. 10.

Haynes, R.W.; Fight, R.D. 2004. Reconsidering price

projections for selected grades of Douglas-fir, coast

hem-fir, inland hem-fir, and ponderosa pine lumber. Res.

Pap. PNW-RP-621. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 31 p.

Haynes, R.W.; McCool, S.; Horne, A.; Birchfield

[Burchfield], J. 1996. Natural resource management

and community well-being. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

24(2): 222-226.

Howard, J.L. 2003. U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and price statistics 1965 to 2002. Res. Pap.

FPL-RP-615. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 90 p.

Johnson, D.; Walck, C. 2004. Integrating sustainability

into corporate management systems. Journal of Forestry.

102(5): 32-39.

Kennedy, J.J.; Haynes, R.W.; Zhou, X. 2005. Line officers’

views on stated USDA Forest Service values and the

agency reward system. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-632.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.
81

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part I: A new approach. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress—assessments and

scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA:

University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: 361-374. Vol 2.

Kusel, J. 2002. Assessment of the Northwest Economic

Adjustment Initiative. Taylorsville, CA: Forest Community Research. 96 p. [Plus appendixes].

Lynch, K.A.; McLain, R.J. 2003. Access, labor, and wild

floral greens management in western Washington

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-585. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 61 p.

Montréal Process Working Group. 1998. The Montréal

Process. http://www.mpci.org. (October 8, 2004).

National Research Council Committee on Environmental

Issues. 2000. Committee on environmental issues in

Pacific Northwest forest management, Board on

Biology, National Research Council. Environmental

issues in Pacific Northwest forest management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 280 p.

Old-Growth Definition Task Group [Franklin, J.F.; Hall,

F.; Laudenslayer, W.; Maser, C.; Nunan, J.; Poppino,

J.; Ralph, C.J.; Spies, T.]. 1986. Interim definitions for

old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer stands in the

Pacific Northwest and California. Res. Note PNW-447.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.

Phillips, D. 2006. Payments to county governments. In:

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham,

C.; Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.;

Phillips, R.H. Socioeconomic monitoring results.

Volume III: Rural communities and economies. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station: 101-104. Chap. 7.

Pipkin, J. 1998. The Northwest Forest Plan revisited. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Office of Policy and Analysis. 117 p. On file with: Human and Natural Resources

Interaction Program, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620

S.W. Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205.

Richardson, C.W. 1996. Stability and change in forestbased communities: a selected bibliography. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-366. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 36 p.

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination

Act 2000; Act of October 30, 2000; P.L. 106-393, H.R.

2389, 114 Stat. 1607. Title II: Special Projects on

Federal Lands.

Shields, D.J.; Martin, I.M.; Martin, W.E.; Haefele, M.A.

2002. Survey results of the American public’s values,

objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forests and

grasslands: a technical document supporting the 2000

USDA Forest Service RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RMRS-GTR-95. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 111 p.

Shindler, B.; Brunson, M.; Stankey, G. 2002. Social

acceptability of forest conditions and management

practices: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

68 p.

Smith, R.C.; Gedney, D.R. 1965. Manpower use in the

wood products industries of Oregon and Washington

1950-1963. Res. Pap. PNW-28. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 48 p.

Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; Shindler, B.;

Sturtevant, V.; Clark, R.N.; Philpot, C. 2003a. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan:

rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry. 101(1): 40-46.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

82

Stankey, G.H.; Clark, R.N.; Bliss, J. 2003b. Fostering

compatible forest resource management: the conditional nature of social acceptability. In: Monserud,

R.A.; Haynes, R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible

forest management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Publishers: 453-480. Chap. 16.

Stuart, C.; Martine, K., tech. eds. 2006. Northwest Forest

Plan: the first ten years. Effectiveness of the federaltribal relationship. Tech. Paper R6-RPM-TP-02-2006.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 53 p.

Taylor, D.E. 2002. Race, class, gender and American

environmentalism. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-534.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 51 p.

Tuchmann, E.T.; Connaughton, K.P.; Freedman, L.E.;

Moriwaki, C.B. 1996. The Northwest Forest Plan: a

report to the President and Congress. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 253 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 2004. National report on sustainable forests—

2003. Washington, DC: 122 p. [plus appendixes].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA

FS]. 2005. National Forest System land management

planning. 36 CFR Part 219. RIN 0596-AB86. Federal

Register: 70(3): 1023-1061.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994a. Final supplemental

environmental impact statement on management of

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest

related species within the range of the northern spotted

owl. Portland, OR: 526 p. Vol. 1.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994b. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of

the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for

management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the

northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown].

74 p.

Wall, B.R.; Oswald, D.D. 1975. A technique and relationships for projections of employment in the Pacific Coast

forest products industries. Res. Pap. PNW-189. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

49 p.

Warren, D.D. 2004. Production, prices, employment and

trade in Northwest forest industries, all quarters 2002.

Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-241. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 171 p.

Zhou, X.; Haynes, R.W.; Barbour, R.J. 2005. Projections

of timber harvest in western Oregon and Washington by

county, owner, forest type, and age class. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-633. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 30 p.
83

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Chapter 6: Maintaining Old-Growth Forests

Thomas A. Spies

too value laden. I will use “old growth” to refer to the last

stage of stand development that is typically associated with

stands with large old trees and complex structure (figs. 6-3

through 6-6). I present a more indepth discussion of

definitions and the ecological concepts of forest development later in the chapter.

What Was Expected?

The assessment of the state of old-growth forests was

based on the assumption and observations (Bolsinger and

Waddell 1993) that amounts of old-growth forest had

steeply declined during the 20th century, placing associated

species at risk and reducing the contribution of old-growth

forests to ecosystem functions such as carbon storage and

the hydrologic cycle. The obvious correction for this

problem was to develop management policies that reduced

the rate of loss of existing old-growth forests and at the

same time promoted the growth of new areas of older forest.

Because the problem is rooted in the loss of old-growth

forest, relative to past amounts, the solutions under the Plan

were based on returning the federal landscape toward an

extent of old-growth forest more in line with what was here

before widespread logging on federal lands. The historical

extent was assumed to be adequate to sustain the native

biological diversity associated with older forest. To do this,

the amount of the historical landscape covered by older

forest in the past had to be estimated. The answer to this

question, however, was not as simple as determining how

much older forest occurred at some past point or period in

time, such as the early 1800s before Euro-American settlement. Forests are dynamic as a result of disturbance, growth,

and succession; consequently, the abundance of older forest

varies over time—no single point or short period can

realistically be used to characterize this dynamic system.

Under the historical natural disturbance regime (type,

severity, and frequency of disturbance), the amount of

Introduction

The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

(FEMAT 1993) was directed to develop alternatives that

met this objective, among others:

Maintenance and/or creation of a connected or

interactive old-growth forest ecosystem on the

federal land within the region under consideration.

The FEMAT produced several alternatives, one of

which, option 9, was selected by the President as the basis

of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan), described in the

Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA and USDI 1994). To a

large degree, the success of the Plan depended on the

structure, composition, and dynamics of forest vegetation.

In this chapter, I describe the general and specific expectations of the Plan, what has happened, and what we have

learned from monitoring. Critical Plan assumptions are

reviewed in the context of recent science findings and new

perspectives, and alternative approaches to meeting the

Plan’s goals are discussed.

The terminology associated with the concept of old

growth is often confusing. Other terms associated with oldgrowth forests have included mature forest, old forest, older

forest, and late-successional. In this chapter, “mature” forests refer to the stage of stand development that occurs just

prior to the old-growth stage (figs. 6-1, 6-2), “older” forest

encompasses both mature and old-growth stages and is the

term used in the status and trends report (Moeur and others

2005) for the general set of different inventory definitions.

“Late-successional” has also been used in FEMAT and the

ROD for these later two stages of stand development, but its

usage in the Plan is somewhat confusing. In this chapter, I

will use “older” forest as it was used in the status and trend

report. Some authors will use the term “old forests” as a

substitute for “old growth” if they consider that term too

limited (for example, only forests with massive old trees) or
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

84

Expectations for the Old-Growth Network in Fire-Prone Landscapes

The old-growth reserve network was established under the assumption that some areas of old forest would be lost to

stand-replacement disturbances including wildfire. Given the forest types, environments, and disturbance history of the

Plan area, this assumption is entirely warranted. It is not realistic to assume that fire suppression will stop wildfires—

the monitoring results demonstrate this—and it is not desirable to stop all fires in these landscapes given their importance to the functioning of these ecosystems. For example, old growth in ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer types

is maintained by frequent low-severity wildfire and patchy disturbances from insects and disease (Spies and others

2006). The Plan did not explicitly evaluate how changes in fire regimes resulting from fire exclusion might affect the

amount and dynamics of old growth in dry provinces, however, and it did not state expectations for forest dynamics in

these areas.

A key part of the monitoring strategy was the development of expected trends in key indicators. For example, the

total amount of older forest was expected to increase at a mean annual rate of 1.2 percent (FEMAT 1993 fig. IV-2)

despite losses to high-severity wildfire, which were projected at an annual rate of 0.25 percent for the Plan area. The

actual rates of net increase (1.9 percent) were higher and the rates of loss (0.18 percent) were lower than expected—

deviations that are consistent with old-growth goals of the Plan. The establishment of expected trends was necessary to

provide a context for evaluating the significance of the changes that do occur. Given the uncertainties and variability

of disturbance regimes and forest development, the expected trends should be viewed largely as educated guesses

based on historical dynamics and our general understanding of forest growth and disturbance.

Although the overall rates of loss of older forest to high-severity fire were lower than expected, some of the dry

provinces had much higher rates than the average. For example, the Oregon Klamath province had a decadal rate of

loss of about 9.5 percent, compared to the regionwide

average of 1.8 percent. If we assume that this percentage

loss was similar for the province as a whole (not just the

older forest part), then the high-severity fire rotation

would be about 105 years. Assuming a stochastic pattern

of burning and a negative exponential model (Agee

1993), this would create a landscape that on average had

about 15 percent of the area in forest with large pines

and Douglas-firs over 200 years of age. The Eastern

Cascades province in Oregon had a relatively low rate

of loss up to 2002, the end of the measurement period.

However, if 2003, the year of the B and B Fire, were

included, an additional 25,000 acres of older forest would have been burned, and the decadal rate of loss would have

increased to 14.6 percent (a high-severity fire rotation of 69 years). If this rate of disturbance were sustained, then the

percentage of forest with old trees would be around 5 percent on average. Clearly, these outcomes would not be

desirable because the area of dense mixed-conifer old growth, which was subject to mixed-severity fire, and open pine

old growth, which was maintained by frequent low-severity fire, would decline.
85

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

This simple analysis only tells part of the story because it does not take into account other disturbances from

insects and disease and the cascading effects of increased high-severity fire. Losses of old trees to insects and disease

would continue to occur and further reduce the amount of older forest and trees in these landscapes (Spies and others

2006). Increased occurrence of high-severity fires could lead to stands and landscapes with a more uniform structure

(either shrubby fields or areas of dense regeneration) than could have occurred under the low- to mixed-severity fire

regime. This uniformity would create a positive feedback loop that further increases high-severity fire and insect and

disease outbreaks. Although some uniform patches of early-successional forest would have occurred and contributed

to biological diversity, large areas of such stands would be less desirable for the goals of the Plan, which emphasize

retaining structurally complex stands including large live trees. Within ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer types,

large patches of early-successional forest are thought to have been historically rare, although Hessburg and others

(2005) argued that high-severity fire in dry mixed-conifer forests was more common than previously thought.

The FEMAT recognized that the desired outcomes of the Plan had a lower chance of success in the dry provinces;

however, the situation may be worse than expected. The assessment of option 9 (the selected option) assumed that the

fuel reduction treatments would be sufficient to lower the risk of high-severity fire. The lack of fuel treatments in and

around late-successional reserves probably has decreased the likelihood of success of the Plan. Furthermore, recent

models of climate change effects project some of the greatest changes to occur in the driest parts of the Plan area.

A reassessment of current and potential future landscape patterns and dynamics at the province level would be

beneficial. A reassessment would provide managers and the public with a clearer set of expectations for provinces and

large landscapes. Many are confused at present about what to expect from the Plan in dry provinces and how management practices should differ across the diverse environments of the Plan area. It would also provide guidance for

actions to reduce risks of loss of older forest to natural disturbances and clarify the tradeoffs associated with different

management approaches for these dynamic landscapes.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

86

Figure 6-4—Old-growth Douglas-fir and western hemlock

stand illustrating tall, deep canopies in the western Cascade

Range of Oregon.

Tom Spies

Figure 6-1—One-hundred-forty-year-old mature Douglasfir stand in the western Oregon Cascade Range.

Tom Spies

Figure 6-2—Ninety-year-old mature Douglas-fir stand in

the western Washington Cacade Range.

Tom Spies

Figure 6-3—Old-growth Douglas-fir, western hemlock

forest in the Western Oregon Cascade Range.

Tom Spies
87

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results Tom Spies

Figure 6-5—Open old-growth ponderosa pine with a history of

surface fires at Pringle Falls Experimental Forest in the eastern

Cascades of Oregon.

Figure 6-6—Dense old-growth ponderosa pine stand

without history of recent low-severity fire at Pringle

Falls Experimental Forest in the eastern Cascades of

Oregon.

Tom Spies

particular young and old forest stages can vary from 0 to

100 percent of a small landscape or watershed. At larger

spatial scales, the amounts of different seral stages typically

have a more restricted range of proportions because most

disturbances do not cover entire provinces or regions

(Wimberly and others 2000). For example, the amount of

old-growth forest in coastal Oregon was estimated to range

between about 35 and 75 percent of the province under the

historical fire regime (Wimberly and others 2000). This

range is termed the historical range of variation (HRV)

(Landres and others 1999). This reference to historical

disturbance regimes was used in characterizing the potential outcomes of the options considered in FEMAT (1993:

IV-49 to IV-51).

The expert panel assessments in FEMAT were based

on outcomes for older forest described in terms of historical

abundance and diversity, ecological processes, and spatial

pattern or connectivity under the historical disturbance

regimes of the region. For example, the outcomes for

abundance and diversity were described as (1) at least as

high as the long-term average amount of late-successional

forest, (2) below the long-term average but within the

historical range that would be expected under past disturbance regimes, (3) considerably below the low end of the

historical range of conditions, and (4) very low in abundance and may be restricted to just a few provinces or

elevations within a province (FEMAT 1993: IV-49 to IV53). The panels characterized the options by the likelihood

that the policy option would lead to the outcomes described above. This characterization was done separately for

the moist provinces, where fire frequencies were relatively

low, and for the dry provinces, where fire frequencies were

relatively high. For the moist provinces, the panels estimated a 77 percent likelihood of achieving outcome 2

under option 9; for dry provinces, this likelihood dropped

to 63 percent.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

88

The assessments (FEMAT 1993) set the general expectations and context for older forests under the Plan: it will

probably lead to an outcome in which the abundance and

ecological characteristics of late-successional forest at the

scale of the Plan area fall within the range of what might

have occurred under the historical disturbance regimes of

the past; significant uncertainty exists about outcomes

over the lifetime of the Plan; the uncertainty in outcomes

is especially high in dry provinces, where decades of fire

suppression makes it difficult to achieve outcomes based

on disturbance regimes of the past.

What Are the Status and Trends and What Differences

Were Found Between Expectations and Observations

From Effectiveness Monitoring?

The older forest status and trend report (Moeur and others

2005) provides a wealth of information over the Plan’s first

10 years. That report may be the most comprehensive

monitoring of old-growth conditions that has ever been

written. Despite the richness of the data sets, the monitoring

timeframe is only 1/10 of the 100-year timeframe of the

Plan, 1/20 of a 200-year return interval between lethal fires

typical in some areas, and only 1/100 of the potential

maximum age of a Douglas-fir tree (see appendix for

scientific names). Consequently, these trends should be

viewed with caution because they could be quite different

in the next 10-year period.

The specific outcomes and expectations for older forest

under the Plan can be divided into three major areas:

abundance and diversity; process and functions; and

connectivity.

Abundance and diversity—

Most of the findings from the status and trend report

(Moeur and others 2005) are related to the abundance

and diversity of older forest, where “older forest” is the

term used to refer to mature and old-growth stands. The

following findings are especially significant:

• The estimate of the amount of older forest depends

on which structural definition is used—adding

more structural criteria to the definition would

reduce the area of forest that meets a definition

because not all older forest stands possess all of the

structural features associated with the general

population of older forests.

• The area of older forest (as defined by medium- and

large-diameter trees [>20 inches and 29.5 inches in

diameter, respectively] with simple or complex

canopies) on federal lands estimated from remote

sensing at the Plan’s beginning was within 10

percent of the value estimated in the recent

monitoring analysis, which was based on improved

remote sensing models and inventory plots.

• The Plan assumed that most of the remaining older

forest in the Plan area was on federal land.

Although some provinces have some significant

areas of mature forest (medium- and large-diameter

trees) on nonfederal lands, nearly 80 percent of the

largest and most structurally complex class occurs

on federal land. This assumption is supported by

the new inventory information (table 6-1), which

confirms estimates of earlier inventories (Haynes

1986, SAF 1984).

• Thirty-four percent of the federal land base was

covered by older forest with medium to large trees

and simple to complex canopies. Older forest with

very large trees and complex canopies covers

about 12 percent of the federal land base and is

concentrated in forests west of the Cascade divide.

• The reserve system captured the most structurally

complex portion of the remaining older forest; for

example, the proportion of large multistoried old

forest in reserves was nearly twice as high as in

matrix lands.
89

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

• Losses to older forest from stand-replacement

natural disturbances, such as fire, were actually less

than what was expected for the Plan area (0.18

percent annually vs. expected 0.25 percent)

(FEMAT 1993) as a whole. However, within several

of the dry provinces, rates of loss of older forest to

wildfire were much higher than the overall average,

and these provinces accounted for most of the

losses to high-severity wildfire.

• The average net increase in older forest with a

quadradic mean diameter (qmd) of >20 inches (1.9

percent average annual increase in the area of old

forest) since the Plan began was higher than the 1.2

percent annual net increase expected in the ROD

(the ROD estimate did not include California).1

Some of this higher rate of increase was because

much less old forest was cut in the matrix than the

Plan originally called for (Baker and others, in

press). This lack of logging, however, accounts for

only about half of the higher net rate of increase. If

logging of old forest in the matrix had occurred at

the expected rate of 800 million board feet per

year, I estimate that the net rate of increase of older

1 The net annual increase of 2.2 percent in stands with a

quadratic mean diameter (qmd) of at least 20 inches

probably results largely from growth and development of

natural stands with qmd greater than 17.7 inches in the

1990s. Natural Douglas-fir stands of this diameter would

probably be 80 to 100 years old, assuming site class III

(McArdle and others 1961). The immediate effects of

thinning on the size distribution of plantations, and thus on

qmd, might account for some of this increase, but most

plantations on federal land were less than 40 years old in

the mid-1990s and would be expected to have qmd of less

than 13.8 inches at that time. Thinning from below to

remove smaller diameter classes would not change stand

structure enough to increase qmd beyond 20 inches, in

most cases.

Table 6-1—Area and percentage of older forest on federal and nonfederala land

Federal Nonfederal Federal land

Province ML LMS ML LMS ML LMS

– – – – – – – – – – – Acres – – – – – – – – – – – – – Percent – –

California Cascades 356,778 24,656 320,507 26,035 52.7 48.6

California Coast 167,582 75,017 1,425,813 240,719 10.5 23.8

California Klamath 1,833,569 385,706 321,383 25,400 85.1 93.8

Oregon Coast 522,962 295,504 727,137 268,009 41.8 52.4

Oregon eastern Cascades 222,787 26,654 94,522 5,120 70.2 83.9

Oregon Klamath 719,296 384,597 233,374 86,557 75.5 81.6

Oregon western Cascades 1,909,647 733,603 268,008 60,476 87.7 92.4

Oregon Willamette Valley 4,644 0 194,992 0 2.3 0.0

Washington eastern Cascades 164,336 0 82,097 0 66.7 0.0

Washington Olympic Peninsula 612,770 284,444 140,968 28,485 81.3 90.9

Washington western Cascades 1,353,454 512,275 308,726 72,159 81.4 87.7

Washington Lowlands 108 0 256,755 0 0 0

Plan area 7,867,932 2,722,454 4,374,287 812,958 64.3 77.0

Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.

ML = medium and large conifers; LMS = large multistoried conifers.

a

 The area on nonfederal land was estimated by using a geographic information system with remote sensing vegetation layers of

Moeur and others (2005) and a layer of federal and nonfederal forest land in the Plan area.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

90

forest would have been reduced by about 19,000

acres/yr or about 0.3 percent per year. (This

assumes a volume removal of about 42,000 board

feet/acre).

• Rates of loss of older forest differed widely among

provinces; annual rates of loss to high-severity

fire ranged from 0.05 to 0.95 percent in dry provinces and 0.0 to 0.14 percent in wet provinces

(table 6-2).

• Fifty-five percent of the area of older forest types

occurred in climatic zones and vegetation types, in

which relatively frequent low-severity fire or

thinning is needed to maintain desired old-forest

structures and to reduce the probability of highseverity fire (table 18 in Moeur and others 2005).

The status and trend results for abundance and diversity

should be viewed with several cautions. First, the remote

sensing and inventory plot data are not a complete picture

of the ecological characteristics of the older forests of the

region. Only broad classes of canopy size and canopy

patchiness were used in inventories. Information about

numbers of large trees, subcanopy trees, and large pieces

of dead wood, for example, were not included. A more

comprehensive analysis might reveal a different picture.

Second, the area lost to timber harvest logging (16,900

acres) and wildfire (102,500 acres) is probably underestimated because only disturbances larger than 5 acres were

analyzed. In contrast, Courtney et al. (2004) in an owl status

report estimated that almost 156,000 acres of owl habitat

were lost to timber harvesting between 1994 and 2003. The

status report estimate is almost certainly too high because it

was based on timber harvest plans that were submitted by

the USDA Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) during consultation, and the agency does not

typically update its database for what was actually implemented (Thraikill 2005). A large number of projects to harvest older forest in the matrix lands were not implemented

because of legal challenges and other factors (Baker and

others, in press). Furthermore, federal forest managers

frequently submit plans that overestimate the area of owl

habitat affected by project activities to give themselves

flexibility in the implementation stage (Forrester 2005).

Although the remote-sensing-based change analysis cannot

detect very small patch disturbances, it has relatively high

accuracy (88 percent) for small to large stand-replacement

disturbances (Cohen and others 2002). Because most timber

harvesting plans in older forest in matrix lands would use

cutting units larger than 5 acres, the change analysis

probably does not underestimate loss by a large factor.

Third, the net changes in older forest come largely from

the gradual growth of the diameter of stands into the lower

end of the 20-inch diameter class and not much from the

development of old-growth forest with very large trees and

complex structure. The relative high percentage increase

comes in part because of a bulge in the size-class distribution of forests with diameters just below the 20-inch class.

After this bulge moves into the >20-inch class, rates of

increase in this forest size class will decline. Given the

limitations of the change analysis, we do not know the

actual net changes in old-growth forest that occur from

losses to fire and timber harvest and increases from the

development of mature forests into old-growth forest.

Processes and functions—

The effectiveness monitoring program was not designed to

provide information about the status and trend in the

processes and functions of older forest. Processes refer to

ecological dynamics that lead to development and

maintenance of old-growth forests. For example, rates of

succession, gap formation, low-severity fire, productivity,

decomposition, and so on are all important to the

development of old-growth forest. Some process trends can

be inferred, however. For example, the amount of lowseverity fire in old forest in dry provinces is probably not

enough to sustain old forests (for example, Ponderosa pine)

that depend on fires with frequencies of less than 35 years

(Agee 1993). Little data were available to support this

hypothesis, but if historical rates had occurred, fires would

have been widespread throughout the forests in these

provinces. Data from the implementation monitoring report

(Baker and others, in press) suggest that the area of forests
91

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Table 6-2—Area and percentage of old forest lost to wildfire, and mean fire frequency in years between 1994 and 2003a

for the entire Plan area and by province

Forestcapable Annual Decade

Province LMb areab LM Loss to fire Period rate rate Frequency

Percent – – – – – – – – – Acres – – – – – – – – – Years – – – Percent – – – Years

Oregon

Klamath 34 2,104,367 715,485 47,600 7 0.95 9.5 105

Washington

Eastern

Cascades 5 3,347,553 167,380 3,700 6 .37 3.7 271

California

Klamath 43 4,221,438 1,815,202 29,900 9 .18 1.8 546

Oregon

Western

Cascades 44 4,379,051 1,935,208 18,700 7 .14 1.4 724

Oregon

Eastern

Cascades 15 1,477,506 221,626 800 7 .05 .5 >1000

California

Cascades 36 999,795 359,926 500 9 .02 .2 >1000

Washington

Western

Cascades 38 3,516,105 1,336,120 300 6 0 0 >1000

California

Coast 47 357,822 168,176 0 9 0 0 >1000

Washington

Olympic

Peninsula 43 1,419,276 610,289 0 6 0 0 >1000

Oregon

Coast 37 1,396,232 516,606 0 7 0 0 >1000

Oregon

Willamette

Valley 25 18,521 4,630 0 7 0 0 >1000

Washington

Lowlands 5 2,173 108 0 6 0 0 >1000

 Plan area 7,850,758 101,500 7.2 .18 1.8 560

Based on (Moeur and others 2005).

a

 Periods differ by province: California 1994-2003; Oregon 1995-2002, Washington 1996-2002.

b

 LM = forests with large and medium-size conifers (>20 inches d.b.h.) as a percentage of forest-capable area.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

92

treated to reduce understory fuels either through prescribed

fire or mechanical means was not high. The rates of other

processes such as gap formation, regeneration, and

nitrogen fixation are not known. The effects of invasion

by nonnative species on old-forest development are also

unknown.

The functions of old forest are those ecological

characteristics that are of value to other organisms or

humans. For example, old-growth forest provides ecological

legacies (for example, large live and dead trees) used by

organisms in open and young forests that develop following stand-replacement disturbances (McIver and Starr

2000). This function is operating largely as it would have

under a natural disturbance regime. This observation is

based on the assumption that few acres of old forest killed

by stand-replacement disturbances (more than 120,000

acres) were salvaged logged, which would have been the

standard practice when timber production was a major goal

on the federal lands. We know little about other potential

functions of older forest such as production of clean water

and nitrogen fixation.

Connectivity—

Connectivity in the Plan refers to the degree to which the

spatial distribution of older forest provides for movement

of plants and animals between old-forest patches. Connectivity can be measured in many different ways and does

not necessarily mean that the patches of old forest need to

be physically connected to each other. Most organisms can

disperse across areas that are not prime habitat, but some

are better dispersers than others. The FEMAT defined connectivity in terms of distance between areas of older forest

and the portion of older forest in the landscape. The expected outcome for connectivity was that the distances

between large blocks of late-successional forest would be

less than 12 miles on average (FEMAT 1993: IV-52). The

status of connectivity over the entire region depends on

the definition of old forest and the process examined.

Connectivity for the mature and old types together appears

moderate to strong, based on the fact that the average

distance between large blocks of this type was 6 miles for

most provinces and that the proportion of the landscape in

old forest is above 25 percent. When older forest was

defined more restrictively, that is, large multistoried, then

connectivity was less but still within 12 miles for most

provinces, except the California coast.

Are the Plan’s Assumptions and

Approaches Still Valid?

The Plan was based on many assumptions about natural

forest ecosystems, management effects, and forest dynamics.

If these assumptions are no longer valid, it could mean that

the Plan will not work as intended, that it might be modified

to achieve its goals, or even that the goals should be

changed. The assumptions could change for several reasons: first, the status and trend of old forest might not be

what was expected; second, new scientific findings could

emerge from work outside of the effectiveness monitoring

program that would change the validity of underlying

assumptions; third, new perspectives about forest ecosystems might have emerged from new interpretations of

existing scientific information. In reality, our assumptions

about ecosystem management plans often change as a result

of both new research studies and new interpretations. The

status and trend summarized in the previous section do

appear to meet Plan expectations. In the following sections,

I address new scientific findings and perspectives that might

be relevant to the success of the Plan.

Old-Growth Forest Definitions

The Plan used the term “late-successional/old-growth” to

describe the older forest conditions that were of concern.

This term includes the mature and old-growth stages of

stand development, where old growth is defined as a stand

containing large live and dead trees, a variety of sizes of

trees, and vertical and horizontal heterogeneity (figs. 6-3

through 6-6). The mature stage of development occurs as

trees approach their maximum height and crown diameter

but lack the heterogeneity of older forests (figs. 6-1 and

6-2). In Douglas-fir forests, the old-growth stage typically
93

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

occurs at 150 to 250 years after a stand-replacement

disturbance and can persist with slow changes for an

additional 500 years or more (Franklin and others 2002).

The mature stage typically begins around 80 to 120 years

of age in Douglas-fir forests. These age ranges and degree

of structural development may differ in other forest types

in the region. The mature stage of stand development was

considered in FEMAT along with old growth because it

could develop into old-growth conditions within the

lifetime of the Plan, it can be structurally and compositionally similar to old growth, and, in some areas, the most

ecologically valuable large patches of uncut forest were in

the mature stage of stand development. Many of today’s

mature forests will become the old-growth of the future and

are needed to maintain old growth over time.

Use of the term “late-successional” to describe older

forest has caused some confusion. It was really intended to

refer to both the mature and old-growth stages of development, but it is frequently used as if it were a stage that is

separate from old growth, that is, the mature stage. This

usage is confusing because the mature stage of forest

development is actually not as successionally advanced as

old growth. The status and trend report of Moeur and others

(2005) uses the term “older forest” to refer to the mature and

old-growth stages. This term is simpler and more descriptive

of the conditions of mature and old forests than is the term

late-successional.

Another source of confusion stems from the two ways

that plant ecologists conceptualize vegetation change over

time following stand-replacement disturbance: succession

and stand development (Frelich 2002). Succession typically

refers to a directional change in species composition over

time where one or more species replaces others. Generally

the species that come later are more shade tolerant and are

often referred to as late-successional species, because they

can regenerate in canopy gaps and maintain themselves

within closed-canopy forests in the absence of standreplacement disturbance. Stand development refers to population/structure changes as forests age. Stand development

may or may not be accompanied by a change in species

composition. For example, fire in ponderosa pine forests

may simply regenerate new populations of ponderosa pine

but not change species composition. Consequently, it is

possible to have old growth (an aging population of trees

and associated structures) composed of early-successional

species (for example, ponderosa pine, aspen) and old

growth that is composed entirely of late-successional

species (for example, western hemlock, or grand fir). One

could distinguish early-successional old growth from latesuccessional old growth.

The ecological characterization (with the exception

of the terminology) of older forest in the Plan is generally

valid, but since then researchers have become aware that the

diversity and complexity of natural forests is greater than

some of our conceptual models have portrayed. Our general

scientific model of older forest and forest dynamics in

general has become more refined as a result of studies of

old-growth structure in Douglas-fir and other forest types

(Youngblood and others 2004), old-growth stand development (Ishii and Ford 2001, Poage and Tappeiner 2002,

Tappeiner and others 1997, Winter and others 2002), disturbance history (Weisberg and Swanson 2003), and from

new perspectives on forest complexity and stand development (Franklin and others 2002, Spies 2004). Collectively,

these studies lead to several important observations about

older forests, which are described in the next several

paragraphs.

Old growth is part of a multivariate continuum of forest structure and composition, and breaking this continuum

up into classes is arbitrary (Spies 2004, Spies and Franklin

1991). This continuum can be divided into classes in

various ways, and a larger variety of classes may be needed

to capture the diversity of types than has been used previously (Franklin and others 2002).

For Douglas-fir forests, old-growth characteristics

typically begin to emerge at 150 to 250 years following

stand-replacement disturbances. These characteristics

include trees greater than 39.4 inches diameter at breast

height (d.b.h.), associated lower and midstory shade-tolerant

trees, large dead trees (>49 feet tall and 20 inches d.b.h.),
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

94

large fallen tree boles on the forest floor, a diversity of

heights of foliage, and patchy distribution of canopy gaps

and understory vegetation. On high-productivity sites,

some of these characteristics can begin to appear as early as

100 years. Where the initial disturbance was patchy,

structures characteristic of older forest can emerge much

earlier, sometimes as soon as 80 years depending on how

much was killed in the initial disturbance. Age can be a

rough approximation for old-growth stands in the northern

and coastal provinces of the Plan area where disturbances

are relatively large and kill most of the trees. Where

disturbance regimes are characterized by patchy low- to

moderate-severity fires, however, stand age is not a very

useful measure of old-growth condition.

Old-growth structure and composition can change

over time within a stand. For example, in the dry provinces,

old-growth ponderosa pine can succeed to old-growth pine

and fir.

Not all old-growth forests share all of the same attributes or have the same expression of structural complexity. For example, fire-prone old-growth ponderosa pine

forests have relatively open understories and patches of

regeneration, whereas old-growth mixed-conifer forests in

the same landscape have dense understories. These structural compositional differences affect stability, resistance,

and ecological characteristics. For example, in the absence

of fire, open, old-growth ponderosa pine forest can develop

into dense mixed-conifer forests that have a lower resistance

to high-severity fire than does fire-dependent pine old

growth.

Old growth is a complex ecological concept that

requires a multiscale perspective ranging from individual

live or dead trees, stands or patches, and landscapes, to

whole regions. At broad scales, the old growth is clearly

part of a mosaic of open, young and mature forest types. A

comprehensive strategy, which is currently lacking in the

Plan, to conserve any one stage of this mosaic requires considering all stages (Spies 2004). Although the structures

associated with these old-growth (for example, large live

and dead trees, patchiness) typically develop and appear

in old stands, they can also be found in young forests as

survivors of disturbance. Thus, the ecological contributions

of old growth can occur in stands of all ages.

Given the complexity of forest development and the

concept of old growth, definitions used for inventory

(Moeur and others 2005) can only be approximations.

Inventorying the amount and distribution of old-growth

forest by all of the attributes that have been associated with

it and using the same inventory tools is impossible. For

example, remote sensing can be used to estimate the size of

trees in the upper canopy and characterize spatial patterns,

but it cannot be used to estimate dead wood and understory

patchiness. Inventory plots can be used to characterize the

size distribution of live and dead trees, but they cannot be

used to measure spatial pattern. Inventory information is a

composite of surrogates from remote sensing (for example,

size of canopy trees) or nonspatial structural information

from inventory plots (dead wood and tree size distributions). For this reason the monitoring plan recommended a

two-pronged approach—remote sensing and inventory

plots—for assessing the amount and distribution of forest

conditions (Hemstrom and others 1998).

The new perspectives on old-growth complexity

underscore the need to adjust conservation and management strategies to forest types and environments. For

example, old-growth goals and strategies could differ by

province, potential vegetation type (plant association

groups), and disturbance regime. The Plan recognized this

complexity to some degree, but more could be done to

incorporate it into practice. For example, specific older

forest definitions are lacking for dry old-forest types and for

younger forest stages or mixes of younger and older forests.

Clarification of the definitions of older forest stages and

their significance for the Plan is important for the following

reasons:

The Plan is based on conservation of a particular stage

or stages of older forest. Without a clear definition or set of

definitions, the goals of the Plan become confusing and

difficult to communicate.
95

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Because forests are dynamic systems, conservation of

a single stage, even a long-lived one, is really impossible

without considering other stages and transitions among

them. For example, many of today’s mature forests will be

the old-growth forests of the future, and today’s old-growth

forest may be the early-successional forest of the future. If

the Plan focuses exclusively on one or more older stages, it

may not sustain native biological diversity associated with

other stages.

Current Amounts of Old Growth Compared to the

Historical Conditions

Conservation concerns about biodiversity in this region

stem from the observation that amounts of old growth and

associated forest structures (large live and dead trees) have

declined strongly over the 20th century as a result of

logging and wildfire (Bolsinger and Waddell 1993). Fire

suppression has also contributed to the loss of some firedependent old-growth types. References to past forest

conditions can be problematic, however, because forest

landscapes are dynamic and the amount of any particular

forest compositional or structural type will differ depending

on the time and location of the observation. Recognizing

these inherent dynamics, ecologists have developed the

concept of historical range of variation (HRV), which is the

range of variation in forest attributes that might be expected

in a landscape over time under a particular disturbance

regime (for example, frequency, type, and severity) (Landres

and others 1999).

Historical range of variation in forest age or stage

classes can be a useful context for understanding the state

of present landscapes (Agee 2003, Wimberly 2002). For

example, the percentage of old forest (forests >200 years

old) in the Oregon Coast Range was estimated to range

between about 25 and 75 percent of the forest area

(Wimberly and others 2000). For forests more than 80 years

old, Wimberly and others (2000) estimated the range to be

about 50 to 85 percent. Today, the amount of old-growth

forest containing 39.4-inches diameter trees, size diversity,

and large amounts of standing and fallen dead wood is

estimated to be around 1 percent of that province (Ohmann

and others, in press). (The smaller proportion of old growth

in Coastal Oregon estimated by Ohmann and others [in

press] compared to Moeur and others [2005], probably

results from the fact that Ohmann used a more restrictive

structural definition.) In the central eastern Cascades of

Washington, Agee (2003) estimated that multistoried oldgrowth forest covered 38 to 63 percent of the landscape.

Comparable estimates of current amounts were not made in

that study. Moeur and others (2005), however, estimated

that the percentage of older forest in the eastern Cascades of

Washington—an area that encompasses the Agee (2003)

study—was about 12 percent, with older forest defined as

medium and large trees whose diameter limits differ by

species and site productivity.

The HRV was used in the ecosystem assessment in

FEMAT to describe possible Plan outcomes. But the

original evaluations of various options showed that

reaching that range may not be possible in future landscapes given possible changes in climate and disturbance

regimes. The concept of variation in amounts of old and

young forest over time does have value in understanding

the degree of change that has occurred and in setting general expectations for landscapes, where native biodiversity

is a dominant management goal. Even with disturbance

regimes and climate change, a range of forest ages and

structures will typically be present in landscapes over time

if disturbances are spread across all stages, which would

usually be the case under natural disturbance regimes

including fire, wind, insects, and disease.

The HRV studies have shown that landscapes the size

of large national forests (that is, >1,235,527 acres) were

unlikely to be completely covered by old forests (Wimberly

and others 2000). For example, in the Oregon Coast Range,

a mosaic of open, young closed-canopy and older stages is

more likely (Nonaka and Spies 2005). Current policies on

federal lands in wetter provinces could lead to more old

growth than would be expected under the historical wildfire

regime.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

96

History of Development of Old-Growth Stands

Several studies in the Pacific Northwest have examined how

old-growth stands have developed over time (Poage and

Tappeiner 2002, Weisberg 2004, Winter and others 2002).

In the moist provinces, these studies confirm the model set

forth by Franklin and Hemstrom (1981) of stands with a

wide range of ages of the dominant Douglas-firs, implying

slow establishment after fire, a history of moderate-severity

fire that results in regeneration of Douglas-fir, or both.

Studies of stand development history are less common in

the dry provinces. Where studies have been done, the range

of age variation in the older trees is wide; old trees established almost continuously over several centuries as a result

of frequent low-severity fires (Sensenig 2002).

Studies also indicate that many old-growth stands in

the moist provinces developed from young stands with low

stem densities compared with today’s forest plantations

(fig. 6-7). The densities of young stands will influence the

diameters of the trees when they reach old age (Poage and

Tappeiner 2002). Not all stands developed with multiaged

old trees; some older forests have relatively uniform-aged

canopy trees (Winter and others 2002), although this pathway seems to be less common across the Plan area than the

multiaged pathway.

Much has been learned in the last 10 years about the

diversity and role of fire in the development of old growth.

Increasingly, the variation in disturbance regimes across the

Plan area is appreciated (Brown and others 2004, Sensenig

2002, Weisberg and Swanson 2003). Although the role of

fire in creating structural complexity in old growth was

known for the dry types with frequent fire-return intervals,

the role of fire in the west side was less appreciated. Typically, fire on the west side was largely seen as a destroyer of

old growth. Recent research (Weisberg 2004) confirms the

understanding that fire in mixed-fire-regime landscapes on

the west side contributes to a particular spatial pattern and

structure of old-growth Douglas-fir and western hemlock

forests.

Figure 6-7—Dense young plantation and old-growth stand in the western Oregon Cascades.

Tom Spies
97

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Silviculture to Restore Ecological Diversity

and Accelerate Old-Growth Development in

Plantations

The effects of thinning on the long-term development of

old-growth characteristics in plantations are understood

only from modeling studies and just a few years of experimental work. Retrospective studies of old-growth development have also provided insights useful to understanding

how silviculture might affect old-growth development

(Tappeiner and others 1997).

Results thus far show that thinning plantations is important to restoring structural and compositional diversity

on federal lands. Dense young plantations (fig. 6-7) have

lower species diversity than more heterogeneous young

stands, and they may not develop old-growth characteristics like large trees and complex canopies as rapidly as less

dense young stands. Thus, the goals of thinning are really

twofold: diversify young stands now and accelerate the

developing of old-growth characteristics in the future.

The literature supports the practice of thinning to

increase species diversity in stands (Muir and others 2002).

Many ecologists believe that thinning for biodiversity

goals should seek to promote spatial heterogeneity in

stands, rather than the uniform spacing and density of trees

produced in thinning for timber production. Spatial variation in stand density creates a diversity of microsites and

promotes species diversity. Leaving some areas of stands

unthinned is important to provide the shaded microclimates

favored by some species. For example, some species of

bryophytes have been shown to decline in thinned areas

compared with unthinned areas (Thomas and others 2001).

The most effective spatial patterns of thinning in young

stands to create ecological diversity are not known and

probably vary across the Plan area. Caution needs to be

exercised in applying the same spatial pattern of thinning

in all areas and at all spatial scales, since scientific research

on this practice is only in the early stages.

The effects of thinning on development of old-growth

characteristics in plantations are only partially understood.

Certainly, the growth of trees into larger diameter classes

will increase as stand density declines (Tappeiner and

others 1997). At some point, however, the effect of thinning

on tree diameter growth levels off and, if thinning is too

heavy, the density of large trees later in succession may

eventually be lower than what is observed in current oldgrowth stands. In some cases, opening the stand up too

much can also create a dense layer of regeneration that

could become a relatively homogenous and dominating

stratum in the stand. Furthermore, if residual densities are

too low, the production of dead trees may be reduced

(Garman and others 2003). Thinning should allow for future

mortality in the canopy trees. Modeling studies indicate

that thinnings in plantations could accelerate development

of some old-growth characteristics by as much as 60 to 80

years, depending on the thinning regime and the age of the

plantation at initial entry. Multiple thinning entries

typically had more effect than a single entry.

Data from implementation monitoring (Baker and

others, in press) are not adequate to evaluate the degree

to which thinning operations were conducted in plantations in late-successional reserves. The implementation

report indicates that a total of 287,414 acres was treated

with partial removal, which includes commercial thinning

but not precommerial thinning. If we assume that 30 percent

of the late-successional reserves (based on the fact that most

reserves contain a significant area of plantations) are in

plantations suitable for thinning, then 2.2 million acres

would potentially be eligible for thinning at the beginning

of the Plan. If the treated acres reported by Baker and others

(in press) were all thinnings in late-successional reserves,

the amount of plantations thinned thus far would be about

13 percent of the total in 9 years, or a mean annual rate of

1.4 percent. At this rate of thinning, 71 years would be

needed to thin all of the plantations at least once, and many

would become too old for thinning (80 years) under the

ROD before they were treated. Better data are clearly needed

to evaluate the scope of the problem, but these limited data

show that the rate of thinning may not be coming close

to meeting the need and intent of the Plan. The implication

is that many stands are exposed to blowdown and other
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

98

disturbances, and could experience delayed structural

development, jeopardizing their expected contributions

to the biodiversity goals of the Plan. For example, if left

untreated, the plantations would probably develop fewer

very large trees (for example, >60 inches d.b.h.) in 100 to

200 years than occur in many of today’s old-growth stands.

Why Do Some Species Occur More Commonly

in Older Forests?

The distinctive plant, animal, and fungal communities of

old-growth forests are typically associated with the habitat

elements such as large trees, dead and down trees, and

microclimates. Species associated with habitat structure

include the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet.

Another reason for the occurrence of species in old growth

is simply the passage of time (Halpern and Spies 1995).

Unique species may occur in old growth because enough

time has elapsed since major disturbance that species with

relatively weak dispersal powers can colonize and grow.

Old-growth-associated species that disperse in this way include some vascular plants (Halpern and Spies 1995) and

some lichens and bryophytes (Muir and others 2002). The

implication for the Plan is that the occurrence of some rare

species may not be accelerated through manipulations of

forest structure. These species may simply require long

periods to recolonize forests after stand-replacement

disturbance. Such species would potentially be retained

through natural and managed disturbances that leave

structures (for example, large live and dead trees) and

patches of forest (for example, patch retention, riparian

zones) that become refugia from which the species could

recolonize younger forests. The presence of some oldgrowth-associated species in predominantly young forest

is associated with survival of large old trees (Sillett and

Goslin 1999).

The Effect of Natural Disturbances on the

Abundance and Spatial Pattern of the LateSuccessional Reserve Network

At current rates of disturbance, the regional late-successional reserve network still appears robust, and losses would

be replaced by growth of smaller diameter stands into larger

diameter classes. In some dry provinces, however, the rates

of disturbance have been higher, and the risk of substaintial

loss of old forest is high. Although this risk was recognized

by FEMAT and the ROD, implementing fuel reduction

activities has apparently not been sufficient to reduce risk

of stand-replacement disturbances. The risk assessment of

FEMAT for these dry provinces is consistent with the fire

condition class analysis (Schmidt and others 2002), which

rated most of these areas as condition class 3, forests that

have been significantly altered by fire exclusion and whose

ecosystem components are at high risk of loss to fire. Under

changing climate, increased threats to old forests from highseverity disturbances in dry provinces and other disturbances could lead to declines in the abundance of older

forests resulting in increased gaps in the reserve network

among and within provinces.

Fire-Prone Forests

The Plan distinguished two major fire-regime zones: the

low-frequency, high-severity regimes of the northern and

west-side provinces and fire-prone forests of the eastern and

southern provinces (for example, eastern Cascades, Klamath, and southern Cascades) characterized by historical

regimes with high frequency (fires every 10 to 50 years) and

low to mixed severity (fig. 6-8). A third type was not

included: the moderate- or mixed-severity fire regime (Agee

1993, Brown and others 2004). This type is typically found

in the western Cascade provinces where the fire regimes are

a complex mixture of stand-replacing and low-severity fires.

It is also found in the fire-prone provinces where topography creates a complex mosaic of fire regimes (Agee 2003).

The assumption that the approaches to conserving older

forest (that is, standards and guidelines) should be different
99

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

for the fire-prone and fire-infrequent regions of the Plan still

holds. Although fuel reduction treatments such as cutting

out small-diameter understory trees and prescribed fire are

less necessary in the mixed-fire-regime areas because these

forests were naturally more dense under the historical

regime (Brown and others 2004), fire suppression in these

types could alter their structure and function in the future

(Weisberg 2004). Recent fire-history research supports a

strategy in which management activities, such as thinning

and prescribed burning, take into account variation within

those major zones that result from climate, topography, and

vegetation types (Camp and others 1997, Wright and Agee

2004).

The Plan recognized the increased risks to old growth

in fire-prone forest types and identified that fuel reduction

activities would need to be carried out in late-successional

reserves to restore desired old-growth structures and reduce

risk of stand-replacement fires in old growth and owl

habitat. The assumption that fuel reduction will reduce

probability of high-severity fire is still valid (Graham and

others 2004), although many of the large fires in the region

are limited more by climate than by fuel.

The standards and guidelines clearly allowed for

manipulations to reduce risk of loss to stand-replacement

fires in the dry provinces. Such manipulations were probably not at a high enough rate to significantly reduce the

probability of stand-replacement fire in dense old growth in

these provinces and restore the open old-growth types. In

2003, the only year for which data exist, it was estimated

that fuel reduction activities were applied on 131,603 acres

(Baker and others, in press). These data are very weak,

however, in that they do not cover all forests in the Plan

area and some of the data come from forests not entirely in

the Plan area. A crude estimate of the upper limit of the

annual area needed for treatment by mechanical means or

prescribed fire can be made by estimating the area of fireprone forest types (all ages and allocations) in the dry

provinces (about 12 million acres), and assuming that

80 percent of these landscapes (9.6 million acres) were

characterized by low-severity, high-frequency fires with a

return interval of less than 25 years (Agee 1993, Taylor and

Skinner 1998). If the low end of this frequency (25 years)

was restored through active management on these 9.6

million acres, then 384,000 acres would need to be treated

Figure 6-8—Patchy pattern of fire mortality resulting from the 2002 Biscuit Fire in

southwest Oregon.

Tom Spies
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

100

every year. That amount would be at least three times the

area treated in 2003. The acres treated might actually have

to be much higher initially because some stands might need

to be treated mechanically before using prescribed fire. In

practice, the area treated would be governed by landscape

patterns of topography, accumulated fuel, and other objectives. Consequently, not all acres and allocations potentially eligible for treatment would need to be treated. Nevertheless, the total area treated is still probably much less than

is needed. The relatively low rate of fuel treatments may

have several causes including lack of funding, legal challenges, and risk aversion on the part of stakeholders, regulators, and managers. For example, the Fish and Wildlife

Service concluded in one opinion that thinning around an

owl nest would constitute “take” of an endangered species

(Irwin and Thomas 2002). Everett and others (2000) estimated that a large proportion of area would need to be

burned every year in the eastern Washington Cascades to

maintain landscape heterogeneity and reduce hazard from

high-severity fire.

The standards and guidelines for these provinces appear

to limit thinning in old forests in reserves. For example,

although FEMAT and the standards and guidelines in the

Plan recognized the need for mechanical treatments and

prescribed fire to reduce risk of stand replacement in these

forests, they do not clearly state that large areas would need

to be treated and that the dual goals of owl habitat and oldgrowth ecosystem diversity and function cannot be met

without a landscape (midscale) strategy. These goals are

often in conflict in the fire-prone provinces (Irwin and

Thomas 2002) where owl habitat has increased in some

forest types (for example, ponderosa pine) as stands have

become dense, shade-tolerant tree species (for example,

Abies spp.) have filled the understories, and fires have been

excluded. The standards and guidelines first emphasized

treating young stands in the late-successional reserves,

but they are more cautious when it comes to treating older

forests in reserves. For example, they stated that activities

should “be focused on young stands,” but that actions in

older stands may be appropriate as long as “they do not

prevent the late-successional reserves from playing an

effective role in the objectives for which they were established” and “should not generally result in degradation of

currently suitable owl habitat.” This language is somewhat

ambiguous and conflicting, especially at the stand scale,

where simultaneously reducing risk of loss to large pines

and Douglas-firs by thinning out mid- and lower-story trees

is impossible without reducing the quality of owl habitat.

Landscape-level (midscale) strategies would identify

key places for treatments, including repeated treatments.

Without this approach, the likelihood of sustaining suitable

owl habitat will remain low. It is important also to recognize

that these treatments will not prevent losses of owl habitat

to wildfire. Consequently, plans assume losses will occur

and allow for replacement habitat over the landscape as a

whole.

Salvage in Late-Successional Reserves After

Stand-Replacement Disturbance

The Plan assumed that some old forests in late-successional

reserves would burn in high-severity fire during the lifetime

of the Plan and that the area and number of reserves was

sufficient to maintain old-growth functions in spite of this

loss. The goal of the reserves has clearly emphasized

conservation and restoration of late-successional forest

including old-growth forest. When those forests are burned

by high-severity fire, 100 to 200 years or more may elapse

before they return to older forest conditions. The ecological

influences of old growth do not end with the death of the

tree layer in a high-severity fire, however. Biological

legacies of old growth, including dead trees, surviving live

trees, and other organisms and organic matter carry over

into the young forests and can persist for many decades as

the new younger forest develops (Harmon and others 1986).

For example, significant amounts of dead wood from the

previous stand can be found 100 years later in postfire

stands, and trace amounts can be detected in some 200-

year-old stands (Spies and others 1988). The amount and

duration of this legacy wood varies greatly with species,
101

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

climate, and disturbance history. The “connected oldgrowth network” is more than a spatial concept—it is also a

temporal one, in which developmental stages are connected

to each other through surviving and slow-decaying structural and compositional components of previous stages.

The Plan was somewhat vague, however, when it came

to the role and management of these postfire stages in reserves. The standards and guidelines about salvage in latesuccessional reserves acknowledge that guidelines are

intended to prevent “negative effects on late-successional

habitat while permitting some commercial wood volume

removal.” They go on to state that some salvage may

actually facilitate habitat recovery (for example, making it

easier to regenerate the site) or reduce the risk of future

stand-replacing disturbances.

The ROD could be interpreted in at least two ways:

• Salvage is permitted only for ecological goals that

maintain or enhance late-successional habitat with

commercial wood volume as a byproduct; or

• A removal of “conservative” quantities of salvage

material is permitted for commercial objectives.

Several arguments can be made in support of the first

interpretation. First, although a high-severity fire would kill

an old-growth forest, it does not remove all of the latesuccessional habitat elements that will be in the young

forest for many decades. Thus, removing any large dead

trees would diminish amounts of late-successional habitat

elements in young forests. Second, these early-successional

stages, with many large dead trees, contribute to an important but not often stated goal2

 of the Plan, which is to maintain biological diversity. The stage of natural stand development after stand-replacement disturbance in old forest is

particularly rare. It was not common in landscapes under a

historical disturbance regime (Nonaka and Spies 2005), but

occasionally it was widespread after large fires. This stage

has become very rare in an era of fire suppression, salvage

2

 See appendix B-1 in the ROD (USDA and USDI 1994).

logging, and plantation forestry. Third, salvage of dead oldgrowth trees would not be consistent with the precautionary

principle (Kriebel and others 2001) that underlies much of

the Plan’s design and implementation.

At the time of the Plan, the ecological values of dead

wood were known (Harmon and others 1986, Thomas

1979). Although little new research has been conducted

on the ecological effects of salvage logging after standreplacement disturbance since the Plan was adopted, the

ecological value of large dead trees in early-successional

forests has been reaffirmed in several synthesis papers on

the subject (Beschta and others 2004, Lindenmayer and

others 2004, McIver and Starr 2000). In addition, no

empirical evidence has emerged that salvage logging can

improve the desired ecological diversity of young forest or

the development of late-successional forests later in succession. Brown and others (2003) found some indication that

removing large dead trees could reduce the spread and

severity of reburns that often follow high-severity fires.

The magnitude of this effect is unknown, and the indirect

effects of salvage logging—including soil disturbance and

increased fine fuel from slash left on the site—may outweigh any benefits of removing large fuel.

Several arguments can also be made for the second

interpretation of the standards and guidelines for salvaging

in reserves. First, option 9 in FEMAT allowed salvage for

disturbances larger than 24.7 acres. Second, the language

in the standards and guidelines implies that, where salvaging is done it should “retain snags that persist until latesuccessional conditions have developed” (C-14). In fact,

very few of the fire-killed trees will persist until the next

late-successional forest develops in 100 to 200 years. Most

trees will decay and disappear well before the next older

forest (Spies and others 1988); however, some small fraction

of biomass could persist. Thus, most of the smaller diameter

trees would not persist for long periods and would not meet

persistence criterion. Third, the allowance of some commercial wood production in this case would meet one of the

President’s principles, which was to provide for economic
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

102

and social values after meeting the criteria of the environmental laws. Removing trees for commercial purposes could

also be justified in supporting the management infrastructure needed to carry out the broader goals of ecological

restoration, which are typically underfunded.

The primary benefit of the large snags is in the first

few decades, first as standing dead trees and in subsequent

decades as fallen trees. Smaller diameter trees (for example,

<20 inches d.b.h.) and species with high decay rates (for

example, hemlock and true firs) could be salvaged with

much less effect on biological diversity. The particular

effects of different rates of salvaging operations on ecological functions in reserves are generally unknown. Consequently, scientifically identifying amount of salvaging

that “should not diminish habitat suitability now or in the

future” is probably impossible (C-13) for the foreseeable

future.

In conclusion, the ROD did leave open the possibility

of salvage logging for commercial purposes in the reserves

after large stand-replacing disturbances, but it also clearly

states the ecological value of dead and live trees in these

situations. The ROD did not indicate any specific amounts

of salvage logging that would be compatible with the major

goals of the Plan. Essentially, no new scientific studies have

emerged on either side of the debate that can shed light on

the essential question: How much salvaging could be done

before habitat suitability is diminished now or in the

future? New studies outside of the Pacific Northwest

indicate that widespread salvage logging can negatively

affect many taxa and ecosystem processes (Lindenmayer

and others 2004), but widespread salvaging was not the

intent of the salvage guidelines in the ROD. An interpretation of the ROD that no salvage logging for commercial

purposes should occur in late-successional reserves would

largely be based on the general ecological values associated with dead trees in postfire vegetation, and application of the precautionary principle. An interpretation that

allowed limited salvaging in reserves would be based on

the judgment that the economic benefits of commercial

production would be greater than the negative effects on

ecological values associated with reserves.

Reforestation in Late-Successional Reserves

Following Wildfire

Natural regeneration typically occurs after fire in most of

the forests of the region. Consequently, reforestation activities in late-successional reserves following fire are often not

needed. However, the densities of regeneration can vary

widely across the region, and in some situations reforestation may be warranted. For example, where seed sources of

dominant conifers, such as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir,

have been lost through historical cutting of individual large

trees and recent high-severity fire, some planting may be

needed. Studies in southwestern Oregon showed that

natural conifer regeneration can be difficult to obtain on

many sites because of moisture limitations and competition

with sprouting shrubs and trees (Minore and Laacke 1992).

If timber production is a goal, planting and treatments of

competing vegetation are clearly needed to establish

conifer plantations. The amount of planting needed to

restore structurally diverse forests in dry landscapes is not

known, however. Historical studies of old forests have

shown that natural regeneration and development of young

stands took many decades, and the densities of trees in

these young stands were often relatively low. In some dry

landscapes, open brush fields probably persisted for long

periods as trees slowly invaded. These shrubby areas were

important to the general biological diversity of the landscape and can contribute nutrients such as nitrogen by

nitrogen-fixing shrubs. If recent fires have had a much

higher proportion of high-severity damage than in the past,

then it is possible that vegetation development after these

fires would be quite different than under natural disturbances, where patches of surviving old trees and seed

sources would have been common in postfire landscapes.

Under these circumstances, some reforestation could be

justified for ecological goals.
103

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

The Plan Is Based on the Geographic Distribution

of a Single Species

The Plan assumed that a region defined by the range of a

single species, the northern spotted owl, could form the

basis of a cohesive unit for ecosystem management. The

region encompassed a wide range of ecosystem types and

disturbance regimes. The Plan attempted to deal with variability in that area through province and watershed analyses, geographic variation in standards and guidelines, and

adaptive management areas distributed across the Plan

area. In the first decade of implementation, however, the

diversity of approaches appears to be much less than was

intended. Consequently, the use of a single species to define

the boundaries of a complex ecosystem plan is difficult to

defend ecologically or administratively.

Treatment of the Matrix for Both Ecological Values

and Commodity Production

The ecological value of leaving large live trees as individuals and groups as a way of supporting older forest species in

areas managed for timber production has been supported by

habitat studies of individual species (Sillett and McCune

1998). In addition, fire history studies show that many oldgrowth stands may have gone through periods in which the

stand was partly or almost completely killed by disturbance. Approximating some of the characteristics of these

natural disturbances with green-tree retention harvesting

approaches in the matrix is consistent with this information.

Despite the technical and scientific basis of commodity

production from the matrix, harvest of older forest did not

occur. No new scientific evidence has emerged that the

standards and guidelines for the matrix, which allowed

cutting of old trees, would not meet the ecological and

viability goals of the Plan.

The Reserve Strategy of the Plan

The Plan has sometimes been criticized for using a reservebased approach. At other times, it has been criticized for not

placing all of the remaining old growth into “true protection,” such as a park or wilderness area. These criticisms

imply that “reserve” means one thing—a no-touch-nomanagement zone and that a reserve approach is either not

valid for dynamic forests or is the only way to conserve the

old growth. The reality is that conservation biology and the

Plan rest on various kinds of reserves and protected areas.

Most of the protected areas allow active management for

ecological goals, and the matrix allows active management

for a blend of commodity and ecological goals. As implemented, however, the differences among the land allocations have been much less than intended.

A reserve is defined as an “area of land especially

dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological

diversity, and natural and associated cultural resources, and

managed through legal or other effective means” (IUCN

1994). It has also been defined as, “extensive tracts managed primarily to perpetuate natural ecosystems and related

processes, including biota” (Lindenmayer and Franklin

2002: 75). According to these authors, reserves are to

provide:

• Examples of [natural] ecosystems, landscapes,

stands, biota, etc. and contribute to natural

evolutionary processes.

• Strongholds for sensitive species (for example,

particular habitats or species sensitive to human

intrusions).

• Control areas against which to measure effects of

human activities.

Reserves are an administrative or legal vehicle to reach

an ecological goal rather than the goal itself. In other words,

species and ecosystems do not respond to why people’s

activities vary across a landscape—only that they do vary.

The ecological goals for reserves are typically so generally

defined “for example, natural processes and ecosystems”

that specific measures of success do not exist other than

the goal of keeping direct human effects out of the area. If

“natural”—little or no human presence—is the goal, then
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

104

all ecological states, species, and ecosystems that develop

are equally desirable. Ecological conditions in a reserve

may conflict with more specific vegetation or habitat goals

for species or landscapes, however. Northern spotted owl

habitat in fire-prone landscapes is a good example of this

conflict.

The Plan contains many types of reserves or protected

areas. All of these reserve strategies are consistent with

internationally recognized approaches to conservation

(table 6-3). A similar although simpler set of protection

classes has been developed by the Gap Analysis Program of

the U.S. Geological Survey (http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/).

Note that several of these protected areas allow active

management to achieve ecological goals. For example, the

late-successional reserves are closest to International Union

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN 1994) category IV, which

allows active management for habitat and conservation objectives. Note also that the last category of protection, code

VI, actually allows for producing wood products. In fact, the

entire federal forest landscape has many of the attributes

of IUCN-protected category VI because under the Plan,

biodiversity goals are paramount, sustainable use of forests

is also a goal, and no large commercial plantations are

allowed (matrix standards and guidelines with green-tree

retention do not create standard commercial plantations).

The notion of reserves implies the existence of a

surrounding landscape that is not reserved or is a “matrix”

of other uses, typically commodity production. Normally,

the matrix is the dominant land area and the reserves are

embedded in it. In the Plan, however, the matrix in most

provinces is not the majority of the federal landscape. The

Plan has created a situation in which the “matrix” in the

sense of the dominant landscape is really the reserves, and

the commodity production areas are minority land allocations that are embedded in those areas. In another sense, the

true matrix for the federal land is the nonfederal land, where

commodity production is typically the major goal. The

implication of this structure is that, because this reserve

network covers very large areas, many of them in fire-prone

forest types, losses of old forest will undoubtedly happen

regularly within the network. Because the reserve system is

so extensive, it was hypothesized that it would be robust to

these losses. In most forest regions of the world, reserves are

a relatively small part of the forest. Consequently, losses to

habitat within these small areas can be devastating; it is less

of a problem here, although, in some provinces the sizes of

the disturbances can be large. The assumption that the

reserve network was sufficient to meet the Plan’s goals has

never been examined at province or larger scales as part of

its adoption. At the landscape level, only the Blue River

Landscape Study (Cissel and others 1999) addressed this

issue.

The federal matrix was intended to allow standreplacement logging for commodity production, but the

logging has not been done to the degree expected. Consequently, the matrix and the reserves have been treated

similarly in terms of regeneration harvesting and the rate

of planned, stand-replacement disturbances. Consequently,

the production of diverse early-successional forests, which

would have been a byproduct of green-tree retention logging practices in the matrix, has not happened. In dry

provinces this early-successional habitat has developed

from wildfires; in wetter provinces, however, this habitat has

probably declined, generally reducing seral-stage diversity

on federal lands.

Forests are dynamic but reserve boundaries are not.

This reality raises the question of whether a reserve-based

strategy is the best approach. The Plan’s reserves are not notouch zones, especially in the fire-prone provinces, and the

large size of the reserve network means that it is relatively

robust against high-severity disturbances. Still, examining

alternatives would be helpful, to see if more effective

strategies exist to meet the Plan’s ecological goals.

One approach might be to move reserve boundaries

after a stand-replacement wildfire. Some adjustments to

reserves can be consistent with the Plan (FEMAT 1993:

VIII-30; USDA and USDI 1994: E-18) and adaptive management. However, moving late-successional reserve boundaries as a standard response to high-severity fire in latesuccessional and old-growth forests was not part of the Plan
105

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Table 6-3—Correspondence of Plan land allocations to International Union for Conservation

of Nature (IUCN) protected-area categories

IUCN characteristics

Closest IUCN Human

Plan allocation category Code Goal intervention

Research natural Strict nature Ia Science Minimal

area reserve

Wilderness Wilderness area Ib Natural Minimal

(29 percent of character and

Plan area) absence of

human impacts

National park National park II Ecosystem Localized

including protection and impacts,

wilderness recreation restoration

Administratively Natural III Specific Possibly

withdrawn monument natural feature restoration

(7 percent of area)

Late-successional Habitat, species IV Conservation Restoration,

reserves management through active

(44 percent of area management management

area) intervention for ecological

goals only

No counterpart in Protected V Desired Traditional or

Plan other than landscape cultural historical (presome Native (historical) industrial)

American sites landscapes uses

containing

human

interactions

with nature

Entire federal Managed VI Sustainable use Limited

landscape including resource of natural harvesting

reserves (~50%) protected area ecosystems allowed to

and matrix (~20%) with provide a

biodiversity sustainable

protection flow of natural

paramount products, no

large

commercial

plantations
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

106

and may require a reexamination of network and other

components (for example, key watersheds, aquatic habitat).

The interconnectedness of the Plan’s conservation strategies3

 makes it difficult to modify any single part of it

without potentially compromising its goals.

Alternatives to the Plan’s reserve strategy exist, and

their suitability depends on the particular desired balance

between ecological and commodity goals, the decision

process used to manage the forests, and the natural dynamics of the forest landscapes. The following are several

possibilities:

• Structure-based management. This approach would

have no fixed reserves and the entire landscape

would be managed for both ecological and

commodity goals to be achieved through variable

timber rotations ranging from standard industrial

rotations to rotations of 150 years or more (ODF

2001). Green-tree retention may be practiced with

regeneration harvests. This approach was briefly

considered during FEMAT, but it was rejected for

several reasons: to meet commodity objectives

would require the logging of large areas of existing old growth; it was unknown how well sensitive

species, processes, and habitats could be maintained entirely through managed systems; risks

to viability of late-successional species were

considered too large, it would not produce the

full diversity of old-growth forest conditions (for

example, forests older than 400 years) and functions that currently exist in the region; and the

road systems required to maintain active management across the landscape could be detrimental to

the other goals.

3 Option 9 was an attempt to achieve efficiency through

coordination of aquatic and terrestrial strategies and

ecosystem and species strategies.

• Temporary reserves. Under this approach, a reserve

would exist until the trees are killed in a standreplacement disturbance. At this point, the reserve

would revert to the matrix allocation or an adaptive management area. Unless new reserves were

designated, the approach would be problematic for

Plan goals because, over time, the forest would

change from reserves to more active management,

changing the mix of biodiversity and commodity

goals.

• Hybrid of disturbance-based management and

reserves. The Blue River Landscape Study is an

example of this approach (Cissel and others 1999),

which demonstrates how watershed analysis in the

Plan could have been used to revise the spatial

pattern of allocations and management prescriptions based on knowledge of fire history and landscape dynamics. Reserves are designated, but the

boundaries and their landscape distribution are

fundamentally different from the Plan’s. Riparian

reserves are blocked into larger patches, leaving

matrix areas larger and more operationally feasible.

The matrix is managed on longer rotations (with

greater live and dead tree retention) producing less

of a gap in midaged stands (80 to 200 years) in the

long run than under the Plan in which the matrix

would largely be less than 80 years and the

reserves would largely be over 200 years old.

This plan assumes continued cutting of some

older forest but at a lower rate than would happen

in the Plan. Although this approach has less area

in reserves than does the Plan, it produces less

timber than would be expected under the fully

implemented Plan because of long rotations and

higher retention of live trees.

• Reserve all remaining old growth or mature and

old growth. Under this approach all old-growth

forests—including those in the matrix—would

be reserved from logging. The timber production

goals would have to come from younger natural
107

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

forests and existing plantations. The effects of this

alternative would depend on the definition of old

forest, the expected rate of timber production, and

the kind of activities permitted in the reserves.

This approach would have some elements of

option 1 from FEMAT, in which most of the remaining old forest was reserved and the largest

numbers of species were considered to have

sufficient habitat. The long-term effects of this

approach are uncertain. If plantations were the

main location of regeneration harvest, such an

approach might perpetuate undesirable spatial

patterns that were set earlier under different forest

management objectives. If pattern goals were part

of this strategy, some plantations would have to be

excluded from the timber production base, which

would reduce expected timber outputs. This approach would require a different strategy in the

fire-prone provinces where open, fire-dependent

old-growth types have largely been replaced by

late-successional types with dense understories

of shade-tolerant conifers. In many areas, selective logging of large pines and Douglas-firs has

removed the large tree components. Thus,

reserving the old-growth in these landscapes

means locating the large remaining trees and using

them as foci for restoration activities that would

include thinning, mechanical fuel reduction, and

prescribed fire. Timber production in these types

would have to come from smaller diameter trees

that were removed in the process of protecting old,

large trees. Of course, to meet owl habitat objectives, areas of dense late-successional old-growth

forest would have to be retained.

• Landscape restoration in fire-prone provinces. The

most urgent need for improving the effectiveness

of the Plan lies in the fire-prone provinces. The

standards and guidelines for reserves and matrix

do not adequately address the landscape perspectives that are really needed to conduct ecosystem

management in these areas. This approach is not

simply a matter of abolishing all land allocations

and using a “shifting mosaic” approach to management. The owl’s habitat requirements necessitate

zoning the landscape both to provide the appropriate amount and spacing of owl habitat and to

prioritize fuel treatments based on plant association groups and the landscape ecology of fire. We

do not know how close the current pattern of Plan

allocations comes to landscape zoning where the

goal is to reduce risk to loss of owl habitat from

fire and pathogens. It seems likely that a more

effective landscape strategy could be developed,

especially given the losses of owl habitat that have

already occurred in many provinces and the fact

that matrix lands currently appear to be managed

as though they were late-successional reserves

(that is, little cutting of older forest for timber

goals). Of course, any landscape plan would be

subject to the unpredictable elements of natural

disturbances, which can only be treated in a

probabilistic sense. High-severity fires would

still occur under more effective fuel reduction

strategies, but management actions could reduce

their effects.

Developing a new strategy for implementing the Plan in

the fire-prone provinces is beyond the scope of this document, but whatever strategy is developed could include:

• More explicit guidelines on balancing the area of

dense older forests for northern spotted owl habitat

and for other species, and the risks of loss of those

habitats from the stand-replacement disturbances

that are more likely in dense forests. For example,

how large should the habitat areas be, and how

should they be placed to reduce risk of loss of

habitat areas? How should the habitats be placed

relative to the potential vegetation (plant association groups) and disturbance regimes?
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

108

• A strategy to retain large-diameter trees for

ecological and social reasons; for example, what

diameters and species should be retained in

restoration activities in matrix and latesuccessional reserves?

• A more explicit approach for restoring open oldgrowth forest types and landscape patterns and

reducing the probability of high-severity fire. This

approach would be more explicit and emphatic

about the need for active management, including

mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, and

reestablishing seed sources of desired tree species

over large areas and across all allocations. For

example, what stand-level prescriptions should be

used, and how should they be distributed across

landscapes?

• A more explicit plan for providing a sustainable

flow of commodities and revenues that could be

used to finance restoration programs and support

local communities in these provinces.

The Role of Nonfederal Land

The Plan addressed management only on federal land.

Although relation to nonfederal land was considered,

FEMAT did not analyze conditions or plans for nonfederal

land other than for timber production. The Plan essentially

did not assume any contribution of nonfederal land to latesuccessional goals. The FEMAT did call for working with

nonfederal landowners to coordinate management across

watersheds and provinces as part of an “integrated approach

to ecosystem management for nonfederal lands” (FEMAT

1993: VIII-39). No evidence suggests that this occurred to

any large degree, however.

The Plan made several fundamental assumptions about

nonfederal forest land.

1. The nonfederal land would contribute little to the

late-successional goals.

The inventory data suggest that this is not entirely true.

The status and trend report shows that significant areas of

stands with medium-sized trees (>20 inches d.b.h.) exist off

of federal lands (table 6-1). This is particularly true in the

coastal provinces of Oregon and California, where federal

lands occupy a minority of the area and where highly

productive private forests occur that can grow stands with

average stem diameters of 20 inches in 60 to 70 years

(McArdle and others 1961). Large-diameter (>29.5 inches)

multistoried forest occurs predominantly on federal land,

although at least 20 percent occurs off of federal land,

probably largely on other public ownerships. On these

other ownerships, this older forest is more likely to be in

smaller patches or have had a history of logging that reduced other structural elements, such as dead wood. Within

the nonfederal land, medium and large multistoried forest

covers about 17 percent and 3 percent, respectively, of the

forest-capable acres (Moeur 2004).

Some research has also shown that this assumption

(No. 1) is not necessarily true (Holthausen and others 1995,

Spies and Johnson 2003). In fact, some nonfederal forest

management practices have incorporated elements of latesuccessional conservation objectives. For example, state

forests in coastal Oregon have adopted plans that would

increase the amount of mature forest in that landscape

(ODF 2001) over what it would have been if those lands

were managed under an industrial forestry model. Simulation projections showed that indicators of old-growth forest

structure and spotted owl habitat will increase strongly on

those state forests in the northern Coast Range, although

they will not reach the amounts on federal lands in that

province (Spies and others, in press). Private forest lands

will not contribute much to older forest habitat values, but

the area of stands with large-diameter trees may show small

increases as a result of stream-side protection rules in

Oregon and Washington, and some habitat conservation

plans for northern spotted owls are on those lands.

2. The federal land alone could meet the biodiversity

needs of focal species and ecosystems without

contributions from the nonfederal lands.

This assumption also is not necessarily true. Research

in coastal Oregon shows that the highest potential coho

habitat is not on federal land, where stream gradients are
109

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

relatively steep, but on private lands and especially on

nonindustrial private lands, where stream gradients are

gentler and more conducive to coho habitat (Burnett 2004).

Furthermore, in coastal Oregon, about one-third of moderate- to high-quality marbled murrelet habitat is on nonfederal land in the Coast Range of Oregon, and almost

60 percent of moderate- to high-quality red tree vole habitat is on nonfederal land. Some ecosystem types that are

regionally threatened, such as oak woodlands, are primarily

on nonfederal land as are many large river flood plains and

wetlands.

3. Federal land alone could meet Plan goals in spite

of contradictory influences from nonfederal lands.

The assumption that activities on adjacent nonfederal

lands would not negatively influence desired conditions

on federal lands is questionable, but it remains untested

in provinces, landscapes, and watersheds dominated by

nonfederal lands. This assumption is especially questionable on BLM land. For example, in the Oregon Coast

Range, 70 percent of BLM land falls within 3,280 feet

of nonfederal land (Spies and others 2002). Here, forests

on federal lands may be at greater risk of invasion from

nonnative species, diseases, and fires that may originate

on other ownerships with higher densities of roads, seed

sources for nonnative species, sources of fire ignition from

human activities, and fuel configurations that facilitate

the spread of fire. The magnitude of these influences has

received relatively little study, but it could be high in

some areas.

The Plan also made implicit assumptions that emphasis

on protecting and restoring late-successional habitats and

species would not jeopardize the viability or diversity of

other species or ecosystems not directly associated with

older forest or, in other words, that a plan that focused on

older forest would also provide for other elements of biological diversity. Although it was not stated explicitly, it

may have been assumed that nonfederal land would provide

for other non-late-successional species that were not

provided for on federal land.

This assumption is not necessarily valid. Again,

research in the Oregon Coast Range indicates several

trends. First, successional diversity will decline on federal

land as succession moves stands and landscapes toward

dominance of late-successional habitats. This trend will be

mitigated by any regeneration harvesting in matrix areas

and by natural stand-replacement disturbances from fire,

wind, and pathogens. In some provinces, however, standreplacement disturbances will be infrequent, and many

landscapes will become dominated by older forests.

Second, some vegetation types will decline on all ownerships because no forest plans will provide for them. For

example, hardwood forests in coastal Oregon are projected

to decline because federal plans exclusively emphasize

late-successional forests and private forest lands emphasize

the growth of conifer plantations. Although hardwoods

could develop as a result of unplanned disturbances, such

as landslides, debris flows, and wildfire, most management

plans have worked to greatly reduce the incidence of these

disturbances. Third, diverse early-successional forests with

old-growth legacies are also expected to decline. Disturbances that create these legacies are suppressed on all

ownerships, and postdisturbance practices on nonfederal

ownerships typically work to reduce early-successional

structural and compositional diversity. Although a goal for

the federal land is to achieve high amounts of older forest,

forest history studies and simulation modeling suggest that,

under natural disturbance regimes, landscapes were not

totally dominated by old forest, and forest landscapes were

characterized by an intermixing of early-, mid- and latesuccessional forest types (Nonaka and Spies 2005).

The Plan also explicitly assumed that a comprehensive, integrated assessment of forest ecosystem management could be conducted by focusing primarily on latesuccessional forests with the federal land. Given the

interconnectedness of forest ecosystems and landscapes,

this focus means that the ecosystem assessment for the Plan

was incomplete. For example, it did not assess the consequences of the development of a bifurcated forest condition

across the region in which federal land is dominated by
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

110

older forest managed primarily for biodiversity goals and

nonfederal land is dominated by younger forest managed

for timber and other goals. This emerging pattern has

implications for regional biodiversity, spread of fire and

other disturbances, and protecting biodiversity on

nonfederal lands. For example, when considered at a

regional scale, the biodiversity protections on federal land

may allow for timber production on nonfederal land with

minimal habitat protection for some endangered species.

On the other hand, landscape- and province-scale analysis

shows that because of the mix of forest goals, some habitat

types (for example, hardwoods, diverse early-successional

vegetation) may strongly decline, with uncertain effects.

Climate Change Effects

Climate change was identified as one of the sources of

uncertainties in meeting the outcomes described in the

species and old-growth ecosystem assessments. The

assessments for option 9 in FEMAT stated the likelihood

of not achieving the most desired outcomes at about 20 to

30 percent. Climate change effects on Plan outcomes have

not been formally analyzed. The consensus of the scientific

community that climate change will occur has probably

broadened since the Plan was developed (Oreskes 2004).

The significance of these changes to the Plan is still

uncertain.

The most recent climate-change scenarios for the Pacific

Northwest include (JISAO 1999):

• Increased moisture stress followed by a decline in

the area of forest land as a result of drought, and

increased disturbances from insects and fire. These

would largely be at the current margins of forest

and nonforest plant communities (for example,

East Cascades).

• An initial decrease in summer moisture stress as a

result of higher precipitation, leading to an initial

expansion of forests at the margins, followed by

increased moisture stress and forest dieback as

temperatures rise further.

Keeton and others (in press) pointed out that the second

scenario probably is less likely than the first because summer precipitation would have to increase substantially (20

to 30 percent) for it to improve the typical summer moisture

deficits. In either case, climate change effects within the

Plan area are most likely to be at lower elevations, in drier

provinces at ecotones between forest and nonforest areas.

Many of these effects would be manifest as increases in

disturbance frequency and severity of fires, wind, disease,

and insect outbreaks.

Considerations for the Plan

The Plan, whose outcomes were expected to evolve over a

century, is already making a difference. After 10 years of

monitoring, the status and trends in abundance, diversity

and ecological functions of older forest are generally consistent with expectations. Although the total area of older

forest has increased, and overall losses from wildfires are in

line with what was anticipated, losses to fire are high within

the fire-prone provinces. Given the relatively short time for

monitoring and the lack of reliable information about future

losses from high-severity wildfires and climate change,

significant uncertainties remain about the long-term trends

in old forests.

Information from implementation monitoring suggests

that rates of fuel treatments and restoration of structure and

disturbance regimes in fire-dependent older forest types

have been considerably less than is needed to reduce

potential for losses of these forests to high-severity disturbance and successional change. Restoration activities in

plantations are apparently also less than what is needed in

moist provinces.

Landscape management strategies that balance reducing fuels with maintaining owl habitat have not been

developed, but they could reduce the potential for future

high-severity fires that destroy both owl habitat and the

large conifer trees that serve as the building blocks of oldgrowth forest restoration.

Reexamination of the Plan’s reserve strategy and

alternatives indicates that active management in reserves,
111

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

both dry and wet forests, would restore ecological diversity

and reduce the potential for loss from high-severity fire.

Monitoring trends and reevaluation of Plan assumptions do not indicate a compelling reason for major changes

to reserve boundaries in moist habitats at this time. In dry

provinces, however, new landscape management strategies

could be evaluated to determine if they would reduce risks

of loss of older forest and owl habitat compared to what is

currently in the Plan.

Given that the Plan has not been implemented entirely

as intended (for example, the matrix is essentially being

managed similarly to the late-successional reserves) alternative landscape-level strategies to the Plan could be considered in an adaptive management context to determine if

other approaches might better meet the goals of the Plan.

References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 493 p.

Agee, J.K. 2003. Historical range of variability in eastern

Cascades forests, Washington, USA. Landscape

Ecology. 18: 725-740.

Baker, D.; Palmer, C.; Tolle, T. [In press]. The Northwest Forest Plan—the first ten years (1994-2003):

implementation monitoring: accomplishments and

compliance with Plan requirements. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Region.

Beschta, R.L.; Rhodes, J.J.; Kauffmann, J.B.; Gresswell,

R.E.; Minshall, G.W.; Karr, J.R.; Perry, D.A.; Hauer,

F.R.; Frissell, C.A. 2004. Postfire management on

forested public lands in the Western United States.

Conservation Biology. 18: 957-967.

Bolsinger, C.L.; Waddell, K.L. 1993. Area of old-growth

forests in California, Oregon, and Washington. Resour.

Bull. PNW-RB-197. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 26 p.

Brown, J.K.; Reinhardt, E.D.; Kramer, K.A. 2003. Coarse

woody debris: managing benefits and fire hazard in the

recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p.

Brown, R.T.; Agee, J.K.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Forest

restoration and fire: principles in the context of place.

Conservation Biology. 18: 903-912.

Burnett, K. 2004. Personal communication. Research

fisheries biologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson,

Corvallis, OR 97331.

Camp, A.; Oliver, C.; Hessburg, P.; Everett, R. 1997.

Predicting late-successional fire refugia pre-dating

European settlement in the Wenatchee Mountains.

Forest Ecology and Management. 95: 63-77.

Cissel, J.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Weisberg, P.J. 1999. Landscape management using historical fire regimes: Blue

River, Oregon. Ecological Applications. 9(4): 1217-

1231.

Cohen, W.B.; Spies, T.A.; Alig, R.J.; Oetter, D.R.;

Maiersperger, T.K.; Fiorella, M. 2002. Characterizing

23 years (1972-1995) of stand replacement disturbance

in western Oregon forests with Landsat imagery.

Ecosystems 5: 122-137.

Courtney, S.P.; Blakesley, J.A.; Bigley, R.E.; Cody, M.L.;

Dumbacher, J.P.; Fleishcer, R.C.; Franklin, A.B.;

Franklin, J.F.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Marzluff, J.M.;

Sztukowski, L., eds. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the

status of the northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR:

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. http://sei.org/owl/

finalreport/finalreport.htm. (January 2006).

Everett, R.L.; Schellhass, R.; Keenum, D.; Spurbeck, D.;

Ohlson, P. 2000. Fire history in the ponderosa pine/

Douglas-fir forests on the east slope of the Washington

Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 129: 207-

225.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

112

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of

the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Forrester, N. 2005. Personal communication. Forest

Planner, Willamette National Forest, 211 East 7th Ave,

Eugene, OR 97440-2607.

Franklin, J.F.; Hemstrom, M.A. 1981. Aspects of succession in the coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest.

In: West, D.C.; Shugart, H.H.; Botkin, D.B., eds. Forest

succession: concepts and application. New York:

Springer-Verlag: 212-239.

Franklin, J.F.; Spies, T.A.; Van Pelt, R.; Carey, A.B.;

Thornburgh, D.A.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Harmon,

M.E.; Keeton, W.S.; Shaw, D.C.; Bible, K.; Chen, J.

2002. Disturbances and structural development of

natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir as an example. Forest Ecology

and Management. 155: 399-423.

Frelich, L.L. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance

regimes: studies from temperate evergreen-deciduous

forests. Cambridge University Press. 266 p.

Garman, S.L.; Cissel, J.H.; Mayo, J.H. 2003. Accelerating

development of late-successional conditions in young

managed Douglas-fir stands: a simulation study. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-557. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 119 p.

Graham, R.T.; McCaffery, S.; Jain, T.B., eds. 2004.

Science basis for changing forest structure to modify

wildfire behavior and severity. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 43 p.

Halpern, C.B.; Spies, T.A. 1995. Plant species diversity in

natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest.

Ecological Applications. 5: 913-934.

Harmon, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Swanson, F.J.; Sollins, P.;

Gregory, S.V.; Lattin, J.D.; Anderson, N.H.; Cline, S.P.;

Aumen, N.G.; Sedell, J.R.; Lienkaemper, G.W.;

Cromack, K., Jr.; Cummins, K.W. 1986. Ecology of

coarse woody debris in temperate streams. Advances in

Ecology. 15: 133-302.

Haynes, R.W. 1986. Inventory and value of old-growth in

the Douglas-fir region. Res. Note PNW-437. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

Hemstrom, M.; Spies, T.; Palmer, C.; Kiester, R.; Teply, J.;

McDonald, P.; Warbington, R. 1998. Late-successional

and old-growth forest effectiveness monitoring plan for

the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR438. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

37 p.

Hessburg, P.F.; Salter, R.B.; James, K.M. 2005. Evidence

for mixed severity fires in pre-management era dry

forests of the inland Northwest, USA. In: Taylor, L.;

Zelnick, J.; Cadwallader, S.; Hughes, B., eds. Mixed

severity fire regimes: ecology and management.

Symposium proceedings. Pullman, WA: Washington

State University Extension: 89-104.

Holthausen, R.S.; Raphael, M.G.; McKelvey, K.S.;

Forsman, E.D.; Starkey, E.E.; Seaman, D.E. 1995.

The contribution of federal and nonfederal habitats to

persistence of the northern spotted owl on the Olympic

Peninsula, Washington. Report of the reanalysis team.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-352. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 76 p.

International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN].

1994. Guidelines for protected area management

categories. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United

Kingdom. 261 p.
113

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Irwin, L.L.; Thomas, J.W. 2002. Policy conflicts relative

to managing fire-adapted forests on federal lands: the

case of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: Oregon

Forest Resources Institute. 10 p.

Ishii, H.; Ford, E.D. 2001. The role of epicormic shoot

production in maintaining foliage in old-growth

Pseudostuga menziesii (Douglas-fir). Canadian Journal

of Botany. 79: 251-264.

Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and the

Ocean [JISAO]. 1999. Impacts of climate variability

and change in the Pacific Northwest. ISAO Climate

Impact Group. Contribution 75. Seattle, WA: University

of Washington. 110 p.

Keeton, W.S.; Franklin, J.F.; Mote, P.W. [In press].

Climate variability, climate change, and forest ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. In: Miles, E.L.; Snover,

A.K.; and the Climate Impacts Group, eds. Rhythms of

change: an integrated assessment of climate impacts on

the Pacific Northwest. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Chap. 6.

Kriebel, D.; Tickner, J.; Epstein, P.; Lemons, J.; Levins,

R.; Loechler, E.L.; Quinn, M.; Rudel, R.; Schettler, T.;

Stoto, M. 2001. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives.

109: 871-876.

Landres, P.B.; Morgan, P.; Swanson, F.J. 1999. Overview

of the use of natural variability concepts in managing

ecological systems. Ecological Applications. 9:

1179-1188.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Foster, D.R.; Franklin, J.F.; Hunter,

M.L.; Noss, R.F.; Schmiegelow, F.A.; Perry, D. 2004.

Salvage harvesting policies after natural disturbance.

Science. 303: 1303.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Franklin, J.F. 2002. Conserving forest

biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscale approach.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 351 p.

McArdle, R.E.; Meyer, W.B.; Bruce, D. 1961. The yield of

Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Tech. Bull. 201.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 74 p.

McIver, J.D.; Starr, L. 2000. Environmental effects of

postfire logging: literature review and annotated

bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-486. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

Minore, D.; Laacke, R.J. 1992. Natural regeneration. In:

Hobbs, S.D.; Tesch, S.D.; Owston, P.W.; Stewart, R.E.;

Tappeiner, J.C., II; Wells, G.E., eds. Reforestation

practices in southwest Oregon and northern California.

Corvallis, OR: Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon

State University: 258-283.

Moeur, M. 2004. Personal communication. Vegetation

monitoring leader, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Region, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.

Moeur, M.; Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.; Alegria, J.;

Browning, J.; Cissel, J.; Cohen, W.B.; Demeo, T.E.;

Healey, S.; Warbington, R. 2005. Northwest Forest

Plan–the first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trend of

late-successional and old-growth forest. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-646. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 142 p.

Muir, P.S.; Mattingly, R.L.; Tappeiner, J.C., II; Bailey,

J.D.; Elliott, W.E.; Hagar, J.C.; Miller, J.C.; Peterson,

E.B.; Starkey, E.E. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in

young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Biological

Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006. Corvallis,

OR: U.S. Geological Society, Forest and Rangeland

Ecosystem Science Center. 76 p.

Nonaka, E.; Spies, T.A. 2005. Historical range of variability

in landscape structure: a simulation study in Oregon,

USA. Ecological Applications. 15(5): 1727-1746.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

114

Ohmann, J.L.; Gregory, M.J.; Spies, T.A. [In press].

Influence of environment, disturbance, and ownership

on forest competition and structure of coastal Oregon,

USA. Ecological Applications.

Oregon Department of Forestry [ODF]. 2001. Northwest

Oregon state forests management plan. Salem, OR.

Oreskes, N. 2004. Beyond the ivory tower: the scientific

consensus on climate change. Science. 306: 1686.

Poage, N.J.; Tappeiner, J.C., II. 2002. Long-term patterns

of diameter and basal area growth of old-growth

Douglas-fir trees in western Oregon. Canadian Journal

of Forest Research. 32: 1232-1243.

Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy, C.C.; Hann, W.J.;

Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of coarse-scale

spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 41p. + CD.

Sensenig, T.S. 2002. Development, fire history and current

and past growth, of old-growth and young-growth forest

stands in the Cascade, Siskiyou and mid-coast mountains of southwestern Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon

State University. 180 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Sillett, S.C.; Goslin, M.N. 1999. Distribution of epiphytic

macrolichens in relation to remnant trees in a multipleage Douglas-fir forest. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 29: 1204-1215.

Sillett, S.C.; McCune, B. 1998. Survival and growth of

cynaolichen transplants in Douglas-fir forest canopies.

The Bryologist. 10: 20-31.

Society of American Foresters [SAF]. 1984. Scheduling

the harvest of old growth. SAF Resource Policy Series.

Bethesda, MD. 44 p.

Spies, T.A. 2004. Ecological concepts and diversity of oldgrowth forests. Journal of Forestry. 102: 14-20.

Spies, T.A.; Franklin, J.F. 1991. The structure of natural

young, mature and old-growth Douglas-fir forests. In:

Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Carey, A.B.; Huff, M.H.,

eds. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir

forests. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:

91-110.

Spies, T.A.; Franklin, J.F.; Thomas, T.B. 1988. Coarse

woody debris in Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon

and Washington. Ecology. 69(6): 1689-1702.

Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Youngblood, A.; Hummel, S.

2006. Conserving old-growth forest diversity in

disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology.

20(2): 351-362.

Spies, T.A.; Johnson, K.N. 2003. The importance of scale in

assessing the compatibility of forest commodities and

biodiversity. In: Monserud, R.A.; Haynes, R.W.;

Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible forest management.

Dordrecth, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 211-235. Chap. 8.

Spies, T.A; McComb, B.C.; Kennedy, R.; McGrath, M.T.;

Olsen, K.; Pabst, R.J. [In press]. Potential effects of

forest policies on terrestrial biodiversity in a multiownership province. Ecological Applications.

Spies, T.A.; Reeves, G.H.; Burnett, K.M.; McComb, W.C.;

Johnson, K.N.; Grant, G.; Ohmann, J.L.; Garman,

S.L.; Bettinger, P.S. 2002. Assessing the ecological

consequences of forest policies in a multi-ownership

province in Oregon. In: Liu, J.; Taylor, W.W., eds.

Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource

management. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge

University Press: 179-207.

Tappeiner, J.C., II; Huffman, D.; Marshall, D.; Spies, T.A.;

Bailey, J.D. 1997. Density, ages, and growth rates in

old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27: 638-648.
115

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Taylor, A.H.; Skinner, C.N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, Klamath

Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and

Management. 111: 285-301.

Thomas, J.W., ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed

forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington.

Agric. Hand. 553. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture. 512 p.

Thomas, S.C.; Liguori, D.A.; Halpern C.B. 2001.

Corticolous bryophytes in managed Douglas-fir forests:

habitat differentiation and responses to thinning and

fertilization. Canadian Journal of Botany. 79: 886-896.

Thraikill, J. 2005. Personal communication. Biologist,

Oregon State Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

2600 SE 98th, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of

the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines for

management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the

northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown].

74 p.

Weisberg, P.J. 2004. Importance of non-stand-replacing fire

for development of forest structure in the Pacific

Northwest, USA. Forest Science. 50(2): 245-258.

Weisberg, P.J.; Swanson, F.J. 2003. Regional synchroneity

in fire regimes of western Oregon and Washington, USA.

Forest Ecology and Management. 172: 17-28.

Wimberly, M.C. 2002. Spatial simulation of historical

landscape patterns in coastal forests of the Pacific

Northwest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 32:

1316-1328.

Wimberly, M.C.; Spies, T.A.; Long, C.J.; Whitlock, C.

2000. Simulating historical variability in the Oregon

Coast Range. Conservation Biology. 14: 167-180.

Winter, L.E.; Brubaker, L.B.; Franklin, J.F.; Miller, E.A.;

DeWitt, D.Q. 2002. Initiation of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest: a reconstruction

from tree-ring records. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research. 32: 1039-1056.

Wright, C.S.; Agee, J.K. 2004. Fire and vegetation history

in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington.

Ecological Applications. 14: 443-459.

Youngblood, A.; Max, T.; Coe, K. 2004. Stand structure in

eastside old-growth ponderosa pine forests of Oregon

and northern California. Forest Ecology and Management. 199: 191-217.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

116
117

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Chapter 7: Conservation of Listed Species: the Northern Spotted Owl and

Marbled Murrelet

Martin G. Raphael

Introduction

The statement of mission for the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) directed the team to take

an ecosystem approach to forest management and particularly to address maintaining and restoring biodiversity. In

addressing biological diversity, the team was directed to

develop alternatives that met the following objective

FEMAT (1993: iv):

...maintenance and/or restoration of habitat

conditions for the Northern Spotted Owl and the

Marbled Murrelet that will provide for viability of

each species—for the owl, well distributed along its

current range on federal lands, and for the murrelet

so far as nesting habitat is concerned.

In this chapter, I describe the expectations of the

Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) in meeting this

biodiversity objective and assess how successful it has been

in its first 10 years. In judging progress, keep in mind that

the Plan’s outcomes were expected to evolve over a century

and longer. Thus, discerning progress after only the first

decade is difficult. But a focus on the Plan’s progress in

meeting these goals for two wide-ranging vertebrates, the

northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet (see appendix

for scientific names), both of which are listed as threatened

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA 1973), is certainly

warranted.

Northern Spotted Owl

The northern spotted owl conservation strategy embodied in

the Plan evolved from designation and protection of a large

number of relatively small management areas for individual

pairs of owls to an approach based primarily on the designation of fewer large areas, each designed to support multiple

pairs of owls. The scientific basis for the current strategy

was developed by the Interagency Scientific Committee

(ISC), (Thomas and others 1990). The ISC articulated five

general principles from the field of conservation biology

that formed the scientific underpinning of their owl conservation strategy:

• Species that are well distributed across their range

are less prone to extinction than species confined to

small portions of their range.

• Large blocks of habitat, containing multiple pairs

of the species in question, are superior to small

blocks of habitat with only one to a few pairs.

• Blocks of habitat that are close together are better

than blocks far apart.

• Habitat that occurs in less fragmented (that is,

contiguous) blocks is better than habitat that is

more fragmented.

• Habitats between blocks function better to allow

owls to move (disperse) through them the more

nearly they resemble suitable habitat for the

species in question (that is, blocks that are well

connected in terms of habitat are better suited than

blocks that are not).

Using these principles, the ISC called for the delineation and conservation of blocks of suitable northern spotted

owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (hereafter termed

“habitat”), most large enough to support 20 or more pairs of

owls and spaced no more than 12 miles apart, and the

provision of dispersal habitat in areas between blocks of

nesting habitat.

The FEMAT incorporated the northern spotted owl

conservation principles from the ISC as well as broader

considerations for other species associated with latesuccessional and old-growth forest, functional old-growth

ecosystems, and aquatic ecosystems, and developed 10
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

118

management options. One of these, option 9, was selected

and further developed, eventually becoming the Northwest

Forest Plan. All of the options included extensive reserve

systems, that is, federal land reserved from planned commercial timber harvest and for which the primary objective

was maintaining and restoring late-successional and oldgrowth forest. These reserves included wilderness and

national parks, other administratively withdrawn lands,

and two new classes of reserves called late-successional

reserves (LSRs) and riparian reserves. In the Plan, these

LSRs were designed to include the best of remaining latesuccessional and old-growth forest, termed older forest,

along with key watersheds (FEMAT 1993), and additions

to meet the recommendations from the ISC and the draft

northern spotted owl recovery plan (USDI 1992). Riparian

reserves were buffers along permanent and intermittent

streams where forest habitat is to be retained (See Reeves,

chapter 9 this volume). Under the Plan, these riparian

reserves were assumed to provide connectivity among the

larger LSRs to support owl dispersal.

What Was Expected Under the Plan?

The FEMAT (1993) used an expert panel to assess the

sufficiency of habitat on federal land to support a viable

population of the northern spotted owl for 100 years. The

panel considered four possible outcomes, labeled A through

D. Under outcome A, habitat was judged to be of sufficient

quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the owl population to stabilize, well-distributed across federal lands over

the next 100 years. Note that this outcome does not imply a

constant population, but rather one that might vary around

some nondeclining mean population. Under outcome B,

habitat would allow the owl population to stabilize but with

significant gaps in the historical distribution that could cause

some limitation in interactions among local populations.

Under outcome C, habitat would be so limited as to allow

owl persistence only in refugia with strong limitations on

interactions among local populations. Outcome D represented extirpation of owls from federal lands. The expert

panel assigned an 83-percent likelihood to outcome A and

an 18-percent likelihood for outcome B with no likelihood

of outcomes C or D for option 9, the option that eventually

was developed as the Plan. Thus, the panel’s assessment

was the high likelihood that habitat conditions on federal

land would allow the northern spotted owl population to

stabilize and be well-distributed throughout its range. Note

also that additional features added to option 9 after FEMAT

in the record of decision (ROD), (USDA and USDI 1994b),

such as an increase in the width of riparian buffers on

intermittent streams and protection of 100-acre areas around

owl activity centers in the matrix, would likely provide for

an even higher likelihood in outcome A had these features

been evaluated by the expert panel. In summary, the Plan

“would adequately provide for the continued viability of

the northern spotted owl on federal lands as required by

the National Forest Management Act (NFMA 1976) and

furthermore would provide the federal lands’ contribution to

recovery of the northern spotted owl under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA 1973)” (USDA and USDI 1994b: 31). I

emphasize, however, that this projection was based on

whether habitat conditions on federal lands would support

owls. The panels recognized that the cumulative effects of

habitat conditions on nonfederal lands, interactions with the

barred owl, and other factors outside the scope of the Plan,

would produce much greater uncertainty in the projected

likelihood of owl persistence. The FEMAT also assessed

option 7, an option that was based on provisions of the draft

Mature spotted owl.
119

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

recovery plan for the owl and which was very similar to the

proposals of the ISC. Outcomes for that option were lower

than option 9, with likelihood scores of 71, 25, 4, and 0 for

outcomes A, B, C, and D.

Clearly, over the long term, the Plan was expected to

provide for a well-distributed and viable population of the

owl, but no quantitative description of expected short-term

trends was forthcoming. Several qualitative descriptions

exist, however. Because the Plan is based so strongly in

the ISC recommendations, it is instructive to examine its

expectations. The ISC wrote (Thomas and others 1990: 35):

An implied assumption of this conservation strategy

is that the owl population will reach a new, stationary equilibrium at some future time. We are confident in this assumption, even though the amount

of suitable habitat and the number of owls will

continue to decline over the short term. We hypothesize that once the rate of loss of suitable habitat

outside HCAs [habitat conservation areas] comes

into balance with the rate new habitat is recruited

within the HCAs, a stable equilibrium will be

attained. This equilibrium will, of course, be at a

lower population number than existed historically.

Further, because the northern spotted owl has a low

reproductive potential, considerable time may be

required for the population to stabilize at a new

equilibrium number.

The ISC anticipated declines of up to 50 to 60 percent of the current owl population under their conservation strategy. The northern spotted owl recovery team

projected that owl habitat and owl numbers would continue

to decline for up to 50 years before reaching a new equilibrium under the draft recovery plan, which was very similar

to the ISC strategy in the size and number of its habitat

reserves (USDI 1992).

The Plan provides for a 52-percent larger system of

habitat reserves than did the ISC strategy (comparing

options 7 and 9, in the final supplemental environmental

impact statement [FSEIS], tables 3 and 4 in USDA

and USDI 1994a: 38). Under the Plan, owl numbers and

amounts of habitat were still expected to decline but at a

slower rate than under the ISC strategy. Habitat was expected to decline from timber harvest by about 2.5 percent

per decade (USDA and USDI 1994b: 46). In the FSEIS,

continuing population declines were also expected. It discussed at some length whether, given the results of demographic studies showing declining survival rates of adult

owls, the owl population might have passed a population

threshold from which it could not recover. The 1993 demographic analysis (Burnham and others 1996) estimated a

4.5 percent annual decline (confidence interval = 0.7 to 8.4

percent annual decline) in the population of territorial adult

owls. In considering available evidence, the FSEIS team

concluded that the basis for believing that owl populations

have passed or would soon pass a threshold was not strong.

This conclusion was supported by Raphael and others

(1994), who performed a series of owl population simulations based on projected habitat trends under assumptions

of option 9. These spatially-explicit population models

suggested that populations might decline in most provinces

for the first 40 to 50 years, but populations in all areas

would eventually stabilize and begin increasing as habitat

recovery exceeds losses. In the Oregon provinces, populations did not show initial declines. Raphael and others

(1994) accounted for timber harvest outside of the reserves,

and for ingrowth of habitat in the reserves, but did not

model losses of habitat to fire or other catastrophic events.

In these simulations, Raphael and others did not account for

habitat that might be on nonfederal land.

The northern spotted owl monitoring plan also provided

several qualitative descriptions of anticipated trends in

populations and habitat (Lint and others 1999):

• Owl populations are expected to continue to

decline over the short term with the decline

proceeding at a faster rate for owls in the matrix

than in reserves.

• In the longer term, owl populations in reserves are

expected to be self-sustaining as individual

reserves reach a condition where at least 60 percent

of the land area is owl habitat.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

120

• Habitat conditions within reserves will improve

over time at a rate controlled by successional

processes in forest stands that currently lack the

vegetation structure to be owl habitat.

• Habitat conditions outside of the reserves will

generally decline because of timber harvest and

other habitat-altering activities, but the vegetation

structure across the landscape will continue to

facilitate owl movements.

• Catastrophic events are expected to halt or reverse

the trend of habitat improvement in some reserves;

however, the repetitive design of the reserves

should provide adequate resiliency in the reserve

network, so catastrophic events do not result in

isolating segments of the owl population.

What Has Happened to the Owls and What

Differences Were Found Between Expectations

and Observations?

Baseline habitat—

The Plan was designed by using many of the principles

of conservation biology and was expected to conserve

much of the remaining northern spotted owl habitat in large

reserves. Davis and Lint (2005) used a modeling approach

to define and map owl habitat. They first defined “habitatcapable” lands as those areas capable of growing forest

within the elevation range in which owls are known to nest.

Then, using a software package called BioMapper1, Davis

and Lint classified habitat-capable lands into habitat suitability for nesting, roosting, and foraging ranging from 0

(lowest suitability) to 100 (highest suitability). The resulting habitat suitability maps depict the full range of scores,

from 0 to 100. In some cases, reporting amounts of northern spotted owl habitat required setting a threshold for

suitability and tallying all acres that exceed that threshold.

Davis and Lint generally chose to consider areas with

1

 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader

information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture of any product or service.

scores greater than 41, based on the range associated with

90 percent of known owl sites, to define a range that is

most similar to areas where owls were known to occur.

Under that criterion, about 42 percent of land capable of

supporting owl habitat (42.9 million acres of all federal and

nonfederal lands) is on federally administered land within

the Plan area. Federal land supports 58 percent of highsuitability owl habitat (suitability score >41) and 42 percent

is on nonfederal land (Davis and Lint 2005) over the entire

owl range (table 7-1, fig. 7-1). It is likely that habitat on

nonfederal land is in smaller, more fragmented patches than

habitat on federal land. On federal land, about 60 percent

of habitat-capable land is in reserved land-use allocations

(excluding riparian reserves, which are not mapped) and

65 percent of known owl habitat is in those allocations

(table 7-1, fig. 7-1). Davis and Lint assumed that as much

as 50 percent of the habitat-capable lands in adaptive management areas and the combined matrix/riparian reserves

would be reserved, and under that assumption they estimated that over 80 percent of the habitat-capable acres

with habitat suitability >40 would occur in a reserved landuse allocation. In Washington, Oregon, and California, percentages of owl habitat in reserves (not counting riparian

reserves) are 79, 61, and 61, respectively. This indicates

that the reserved land allocations were somewhat successful in including the most suitable habitat.

 The FSEIS estimated that about 66 percent of the extant owl habitat (totaling about 7.4 million acres on federal

land) would be in congressionally reserved areas and latesuccessional reserves (USDA and USDI 1994a: 222). Davis

and Lint (2005) estimated that about 59 percent of owl

habitat (that is, habitat with suitability score of 41 or greater,

totaling 10.3 million acres on federal land rangewide) would

be in these two types of reserves. Additional habitat is

reserved under other land-use allocations such as administratively withdrawn areas, riparian reserves, marbled

murrelet reserve areas (LSR3), and 100-acre northern

spotted owl core areas (LSR4). The areas of these types of

reserves are difficult to compare between Lint’s analysis and

the FSEIS because the FSEIS did not report these areas, so
121

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

here we focus on the congressionally reserved and latesuccessional reserve areas. Davis and Lint’s (2005) analysis

suggests a smaller proportion of owl habitat was retained in

these two land-use designations than was estimated in the

FSEIS. Also apparent is that Davis and Lint’s estimate of

the total amount of baseline habitat is greater than was estimated in the FSEIS. The difference in amount is a consequence of the difference in methods used to classify habitat

and because the FSEIS did not include estimates for USDI

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park

Service (NPS) lands in California (FEMAT 1993: IV-38);

I believe the Davis and Lint estimates are an improvement

over previous estimates because the data and methods used

to classify habitat were more consistent across the owl’s

range.

Habitat losses—

The expected rate of loss of owl habitat from timber harvest

on federal land was 2.5 percent per decade (USDA and

USDI 1994b: 46). Davis and Lint (2005), using change detection methods from Moeur and others (2005), estimated

that losses on federal land from stand-replacing harvest of

owl habitat (that is, losses of acres with habitat suitability

scores of 41 or greater) were 0.25 percent, rangewide, over

the past 10 years and differed by state: losses totaled 0.11

percent in Washington, 0.35 percent in Oregon, and 0.19

percent in California (table 7-1). Among provinces, losses

were greatest (0.79 percent) in the California Cascades; no

other province lost more than 0.5 percent. Clearly, loss of

habitat from timber harvest on federal land (at least those

losses from stand-replacing harvest) was below the expected 2.5 percent per decade. There were no estimates of

expected rates of loss on nonfederal land. Observed harvest

rates were substantially greater on nonfederal land than on

federal land: losses on nonfederal land totaled 7.8 percent

rangewide, 12.0 percent in Washington, 10.8 percent in

Oregon, and 2.3 percent in California.

Losses of habitat from wildfire were greater than losses

to timber harvest. Although losses from catastrophic events

such as fire or windthrow were anticipated, I found only one

quantitative estimate of expected rates for such events:

FEMAT (1993: IV-55), in conducting simulation studies to

estimate forest development, assumed that 2.5 percent of

reserved areas (on average over the Plan area) would be

subject to severe disturbance per decade. Observed rates

averaged over the entire Plan area have been lower than the

FEMAT estimate, but rates on the Oregon Klamath, Eastern

Cascades of Washington, and California Cascades provinces

were greater than 2.5 percent per decade (Spies, Chapter 6,

Figure 7-1—Distribution of northern spotted owl habitat on federal and nonfederal lands

compared to amounts of habitat-capable forest land in the Plan area (after Davis and Lint 2005).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

122

this volume). Davis and Lint (2005) estimated rangewide

losses of 1.3 percent of habitat-capable acres with a habitat

suitability >40 from wildfire on federal lands (table 7-1).

Most of this loss was in the Klamath Province of Oregon

after the Biscuit Fire. In that province, 6.6 percent of owl

habitat was lost, mostly in large reserves. Rates of loss

in all other provinces were less than 1.5 percent. Rates of

loss to fire totaled 0.4 percent in Washington, 1.9 percent

in Oregon, and 1.3 percent in California (table 7-1). Losses

to fire were less on nonfederal land, totaling 0.1 percent

rangewide. Losses on nonfederal land were 0.03 percent

in Washington, 0.1 percent in Oregon, and 0.1 percent in

California (table 7-1).

On average, the combined loss from harvest and fire on

all land totaled 4.2 percent rangewide during the Plan’s first

10 years (table 7-1). The rate of loss was greatest in Oregon

(5.4 percent). Loss totaled 5.2 percent in Washington, and

1.8 percent in California (table 7-1). The total loss from

harvest and fire on federal lands (1.5 percent) was substantially lower than was assumed in the FEMAT simulations

(5.0 percent).

Bigley and Franklin (2004) summarized changes in owl

habitat as part of the recently completed northern spotted

owl status review (Courtney and others 2004). They relied

on estimates of loss compiled from agency records by the

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS numbers

Table 7-1—Estimated amount of northern spotted owl habitat at the start of the Northwest Forest Plan (baseline, 1994) and losses owing to regeneration harvest and standreplacing fire from 1994 to 2004, by state and by ownership

Higher suitability nesting habitat (HS > 40)a

Baseline Lossesb Change

Land class (1994) Fire Harvest Total 1994-2004

– – – – – – – – Thousand acres – – – – – – – – Percent

Federal reserved

WA 1,964.5 4.2 0.4 4.6 0.2

OR 3,002.5 81.7 1.6 83.3 2.8

CA 1,754.4 30.3 .9 31.2 1.8

Range 6,721.4 116.2 2.8 119.0 1.8

Federal nonreserved

WA 531.4 2.4 3.2 5.6 1.1

OR 1,944.4 10.6 15.7 26.3 1.4

CA 1,104.8 3.7 4.1 7.8 .7

Range 3,580.6 16.8 23.1 39.9 1.1

Nonfederal

WA 1,748.3 .6 209.6 210.2 12.0

OR 2,906.0 4.0 310.6 314.6 10.8

CA 2,910.7 3.7 63.3 67.0 2.3

Range 7,565.0 8.3 583.5 591.8 7.8

All lands

WA 4,244.2 7.2 213.2 220.4 5.2

OR 7,852.9 96.3 327.9 424.2 5.4

CA 5,769.9 37.7 68.3 106.0 1.8

Range 17,867.0 141.3 609.4 750.7 4.2

a

See Davis and Lint (2005) for methods of defining habitat suitability (HS).

b

Data summarized from Davis and Lint (2005) and Davis (personal communication). Losses represent standreplacing events, not partial harvest.
123

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

differ from those summarized in Lint (2005), primarily

because the FWS definitions of suitable owl habitat differed,

the FWS used agency records rather than satellite-based

change detection, and because the FWS included partial harvest in their calculations (Moeur and others 2005 were not

able to estimate acres of partial harvest by change detection

methods). I do not know the extent to which partial harvest

affects owl habitat: some amount of harvest may improve

habitat in parts of the owl’s range and may degrade habitat

in other parts of the range. The FWS reported a loss of

380,000 acres of owl habitat from 1994 to 2003; 156,000

from harvest and 224,000 from natural events (fire, wind,

insects, and disease). The FWS baseline was 7.4 million

acres, similar to that used in the FSEIS. The rate of loss was

thus 5.1 percent per decade, an estimate more than twice

that of Davis and Lint’s estimate, but roughly in line with

assumptions in FEMAT and the ROD (2.5 percent loss from

fire and 2.5 percent loss to harvest, totaling 5.0 percent per

decade).

Habitat increases—

Amounts of habitat were expected to increase over time

as young forests mature and gain the characteristics of

suitable owl habitat. Davis and Lint (2005) were not able

to fully account for growth of owl habitat. The increases

in older forests found by Moeur and others (2005) have yet

to be assessed for characteristics of suitable owl habitat, but

Davis and Lint (2005) suggested that longer term increases

in amount of habitat will accrue for forest that is currently

in the lower suitability classes (that is, those acres currently

scoring in the 21 to 40 range). They further suggested that

the greatest increases in habitat will likely be in the Western Cascades of Oregon and Washington, the Klamath Provinces of Oregon and California, and the Coast Range

Province of Oregon where more than two-thirds of the

habitat-capable Plan acres are located.

As shown in figure 7-2, the amount of habitat-capable

land area with suitability scores ≤40 is larger on nonfederal

lands. This might reflect the heavier rates of timber harvest

on those lands. In addition, based on current harvest practices on most nonfederal lands (for example, short rotations), amounts of forest with these lower suitability scores

will likely not progress toward higher scores over time as

they are anticipated to do on federal land (as older plantations develop into habitat). In other words, low-suitability

nonfederal habitat is probably more static, and recruitment

of future habitat will mostly occur on federal land. On federal land, habitat recruitment can be anticipated from forest

with habitat suitability ≤40.

In summary:

• Most owl habitat is on federally administered

lands, but a substantial amount of habitat (42

percent) is on nonfederal lands.

Figure 7-2—Estimated amounts of northern spotted owl nesting habitat on federal and nonfederal

land within the Plan area, by groupings of habitat suitability scores (after Davis and Lint 2005).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

124

• Nonfederal habitat may not function as well as

federal habitat in supporting owls to the extent it is

in smaller more fragmented patches.

• Most (65 percent) of habitat on federal land is in

reserved land allocations.

• Losses of habitat on federal land from harvest were

variable across the owl’s range; losses from harvest

were less than expected under the Plan.

• Additional losses of owl habitat resulted from fire

and other disturbances, which were most severe in

the Oregon Klamath province because of the recent

Biscuit Fire, and rangewide loss of habitat from

fire was lower than expected under the Plan.

• Loss of owl habitat to harvest was much greater on

nonfederal lands.

• Some evidence showed a net increase in amounts

of mature forest (stands greater than 20 inches

d.b.h.) during the first 10 years of the Plan, but

how much of this increase is owl habitat is unclear.

Population trends—

Estimates of northern spotted owl population trends derived

from the most recent demographic analyses are fully

described in Anthony and others (in press) and in the

northern spotted owl status and trend report (Lint 2005).

These reports provide a full explanation of the methods and

details of the analyses; here I extract a few of the key

results:

• The rangewide population, averaged across all 13

demographic study areas, declined by 3.7 percent

per year from 1990 to 2003 (weighted mean

lambda = 0.963, SE = 0.009). “Lambda” is a

measure of the rate of population change; a value

of 1.0 indicates a stationary population, a value

less than 1.0 indicates a declining population, and

value greater than 1.0 indicates a growing population. A declining population is consistent with the

expected trend; the rate of decline is greater than

one might have predicted from the rate of habitat

loss and is less than the 4.5 percent annual decline

that had been estimated from the 1993 demographic analysis. The estimated rate of change was

based on a different analytical model in the 1993

analysis (see Boyce and others 2005 for a discussion of the newer approach) and so estimates from

the 1993 and 2004 analyses are not directly

comparable.

• Rates of decline vary across the owl’s range,

with the greatest decline (and an accelerating

rate of decline from higher rates of mortality) in

Washington and the northernmost Oregon site

(weighted mean lambda = 0.925, SE = 0.008) and

lower rates of decline in the remaining study areas

in Oregon and California (weighted mean lambda

= 0.980, SE = 0.004).2

 Populations were declining

in Washington and the northernmost study area in

Oregon, where apparent survival rates were

declining on those five study areas. Populations

were essentially stationary on the remaining five

study areas in Oregon (that is, the 95 percent confidence intervals around lambda overlapped 1.0).

Variation in rates of population change in different

parts of the owl’s range was expected, based on

known differences in amounts and distributions

of habitat across the range and based on evidence

from the simulation modeling. The magnitude

of decline and accelerating rate of decline in

Washington was not expected, however, nor was

the apparently stationary trend in parts of Oregon.

• Realized population change in Washington

indicated a loss of 40 to 60 percent of the initial

population in those study areas during the 13 years

of study (illustrated for one study area in figure 7-

3; note the wide confidence interval around this

2

 G. Olson, 2005. Personal communication. Assistant professor,

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon

State University, Corvallis, OR 97331.
125

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

cumulative effect). This rate of loss had been

expected over 40 to 50 years under the ISC

strategy, which would have conserved much less

habitat than is conserved under the Plan.

Extent to Which Differences Were Caused by the

Plan

Trends in the amount and distribution of northern spotted

owl habitat on federal land were strongly influenced by the

Plan. The system of reserves and the restriction on harvest

of owl habitat through various standards and guidelines

outside of reserves has done much to conserve and restore

owl habitat. Clearly, the rate of loss of northern spotted owl

habitat from timber harvest on federal lands has been reduced since the implementation of the Plan (see chapter 3,

fig. 3-1d). About 42 percent of current owl habitat is on

nonfederal land, over which the Plan has little influence.

Some influences from large reserves on federal land have

affected management of habitat on nonfederal land, in that

state and private entities have tied conservation of owl habitat on their lands to adjacent federal reserves (Pipkin 1998).

Current habitat has been and will continue to be harvested

faster from nonfederal land than from federal land.

Habitat has been lost to fires, insects, and disease, and

much of the lost area is in large reserves, especially in the

drier provinces with nonlethal frequent fire regimes. Active

management of forests in fire-prone areas of the eastern and

southern parts of the owl range to reduce risk of catastrophic losses has not been as extensive as envisioned under the

Plan. To date, the loss of owl habitat to fire, although locally

important (as in the Biscuit Fire), has not been extensive

rangewide (see chapter 6). Failure to implement some of the

provisions for risk management, however, has increased the

risk of future losses of habitat in dry provinces, and may

reduce the potential for owl persistence in affected reserves

Figure 7-3—Cumulative population change (realized lambda) of northern spotted owl

populations on the CleElum study area, Washington, 1995 to 2002. The horizontal dotted

line denotes a stationary population (lambda = 1.0). Values (with 95 percent confidence

intervals) denote the proportion of the starting population that is still present at each

successive year (from Anthony and others, in press).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

126

in those areas. Overall, though, the replication of reserves

provides a buffer against losses to fire and other catastrophic

events.

Northern spotted owl populations have continued to

decline, despite the lower than expected rate of habitat loss.

The rangewide rate of population decline is similar to the

rate that had been observed at the start of the Plan and continues to be cause for concern. If this rate were to continue,

the owl population could decline by 66 percent in three

decades. Populations in Washington are declining faster

than elsewhere, and the rate of decline has accelerated over

the past 10 years. Several factors could contribute to this

decline, including the lingering effects of past timber harvest, continuing logging on nonfederal land, forest succession and suppression of fire, defoliation from insects, and

interactions with the barred owl. Blakesley and others

(2004), in their summary of northern spotted owl demographics as part of the status review, suggested that circumstantial evidence points toward interactions with the barred

owl as the most likely cause of the decline in the northern

part of the owl range. They also pointed out that owl populations in the northern range may be more susceptible to

prey shortages, higher energy expenditure, and more

extreme weather. In support of this possibility of interactions between habitat quality and weather, Franklin and

others (2000), in their California study, found that owls in

territories with high-quality habitat had greater survival

during inclement weather than those in poor-quality habitat.

Available data are not sufficient to establish direct causeand-effect relations, but the loss of habitat in Washington

during the past 10 years is not a likely cause of the higher

rate of population decline there, because the rates of habitat

loss in Washington are lower than rates elsewhere where

owl populations have been stationary. The bottom line is

that the Plan has been successful in conserving remaining

owl habitat on federal lands, and the reserve system has

provided for restoration and increases in habitat over time,

but the relationship of habitat to population trend has not

been straightforward.

Although conservation and restoration of habitat are

essential to northern spotted owl conservation, habitat

protection alone may not be sufficient to conserve and

restore owl populations. Other emerging threats, such as

the barred owl, may cause continuing declines even though

habitat conditions are otherwise sufficient to support

stationary or increasing owl populations. For example,

recent studies in Oregon and Washington (Kelly and others

2003) found that northern spotted owls were displaced from

territories when barred owls were observed within 0.5 mile

of the territory center. Species irruptions of this type are

beyond the control of habitat managers, and the Plan itself

cannot prevent irruptions of invasive species. The redundancy built into the reserve design may yet allow for some

level of coexistence of northern spotted owls and barred

owls, but no agreement has been reached among experts on

whether the two species will indeed coexist or whether the

barred owl will eventually overcome and displace the

northern spotted owl from major portions of its range. In the

recent scientific evaluation of the status of the spotted owl,

Gutiérrez and others (2004) described several alternative

hypotheses about the results of interactions between spotted

owls and barred owls:

Clearly plausible:

• Barred owls will replace the northern spotted owl

throughout its range (behavioral and competitive

dominance hypothesis).

• Barred owls will replace the northern spotted owl

in the northern, more mesic areas of its range

(moisture-dependent hypothesis).

• Barred owls and northern spotted owls will

compete, with the outcome being an equilibrium

favoring barred owls over spotted owls in most but

not all of the present spotted owl habitat range

(quasi-balanced competition hypothesis).

Plausible:

• The barred owl will replace the northern spotted

owl over much of its range, but the spotted owl will
127

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

persist in some areas with management intervention (management hypothesis).

• Barred owls will replace the northern spotted owls

in the northern part of its range but the spotted owl

will maintain a competitive advantage in habitats

where its prey is abundant and diverse (specialist

vs. generalist hypothesis).

Not plausible or not clear:

• Barred owls will replace the northern spotted owl

over much of its range, but the spotted owl will

persist in refugia (refugia hypothesis).

• Barred owls will replace the northern spotted owl

in some habitats but not in others (habitat

hypothesis based on structural elements of forest,

which confer a maneuverability advantage to the

smaller spotted owl).

• Barred owls will increase to a peak number, then

decline or stabilize at a lower density, which will

permit the continuation of spotted owls (dynamics

hypothesis).

• Barred owls will replace the northern spotted owl

only where weather and habitat perturbations have

placed spotted owls at a competitive disadvantage

(synergistic effects hypothesis).

Other emerging threats to the northern spotted owl are

outside of direct control under the Plan. The West Nile Virus

(genus Flavivirus) (the virus) arrived in the United States in

1999 and has expanded into the West. This virus is known

to cause widespread mortality in wild birds, and one captive northern spotted owl is known to have died from it.

Blakesley and others (2004) said that the virus could reduce

population viability throughout the owl’s range, but they

also say that the degree to which this potential will be

realized is uncertain. They point out that, on one hand, the

virus may have relatively short-term effects as populations

develop resistance after exposure but that, on the other hand,

long-lived species with relatively low annual reproductive

output may not recover quickly from an outbreak. Sudden

oak death, a disease caused by a fungus-like organism, is

another recent invader causing locally widespread mortality

of a variety of trees, mostly in central California, but with a

few in southern Oregon. This disease can kill tanoak and

other tree species that provide cover and prey to the northern spotted owl, especially in the southern portions of its

range where woodrats are an important part of its diet.

Predicting the effects this disease will have on owl habitat is

difficult, but the risk is important to recognize. I am not

aware of any evidence that the emergence of these new

threats is a direct consequence of the Plan. Other potential

risks, over which federal land managers have little control,

include global warming and the rate of loss of owl habitat

on nonfederal lands.

Sources of Uncertainty

Habitat status and trend—

One important accomplishment of the owl effectiveness

monitoring program was production of a rangewide map

of northern spotted owl habitat. Until this effort, no wall-towall coverage was available; existing maps covered only

federal land and were assembled from a variety of sources,

including satellite imagery, professional judgment from

local biologists, and other sources. The current map provides, for the first time, a consistent portrayal of the amount

and distribution of owl habitat over the Plan area’s full

extent. The data were not ideal: there were differences in

vegetation mapping between California (Classification and

Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings

[CALVEG] system) and Oregon/Washington (which was

based on the Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project

[IVMP] system); the two map products had to be reconciled, and this led to compromises and some degradation of quality. In spite of these difficulties, the resulting

map provides a fresh baseline to describe initial conditions

and from which to assess changes over the Plan’s first 10

years. The map was compiled from information on forest

attributes at sites where owls are known to live. The output

from the habitat-suitability models is a continuous range

of suitability from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

128

those conditions that are more typical of owl occurrences

in the Plan area. Habitat suitability has great utility in describing and ranking owl habitat. For example, in an

independent effort McComb and others (2002) built an

owl habitat suitability map for the Coast Ranges of Oregon

and found that owl occurrence could be predicted with a

classification success of 75 percent. Davis and Lint (2005)

used a cross-validation process and demonstrated that their

habitat suitability maps were highly reliable (see their

paper for details). In these cases, owl occurrence, not owl

demographic performance, was used in model building.

The veracity of this relation between animal occurrence

and habitat quality is the subject of much debate (see Van

Horne 1983), but I would prefer to have some measure of

fitness in relation to forest condition, and much uncertainty

exists about what habitat suitability can tell us. In addition,

the habitat maps are built on a set of vegetation attributes

that were, in turn, derived from models–models relating

spectral signatures to forest cover with their own inherent

uncertainties.

The habitat suitability maps show a full range of scores,

from 0 to 100. To ease communication about results from

the map, it is often useful to summarize amount of land area

that exceeds some cutpoint for suitability and tallying all

sites that exceed that cutpoint. Davis and Lint (2005) chose

to summarize areas with scores greater than 41, based on

the range generally associated with 90 percent of owl sites,

to define a range that is most similar to areas where owls

were known to be. This criterion facilitated discussion of

amounts of habitat, but other criteria could have been

chosen. Any other criterion will result in a different total.

The amount of baseline habitat estimated is thus not an

absolute quantity but rather depends on the choice of cutpoint. Davis and Lint preferred to tabulate the distribution of

acres for the full range of suitability scores. Future monitoring will rely on evaluating changes in the frequency

distribution of all suitability scores, not just the acres with

the highest scores.

Estimating rates of change in habitat over the past 10

years also carries much uncertainty. Ideally, agency records

could be used to map all timber harvest acres, but the

records are incomplete. Instead, harvest was estimated by

comparing satellite images to detect change. This comparison could detect only regeneration harvest; thinning and

other partial harvest that might affect owl habitat could not

be mapped. Change detection was also used to locate standreplacing fires. Again, fire that resulted in partial loss of

canopy was more poorly mapped (see Davis and Lint 2005,

Moeur and others 2005 for a more thorough discussion).

According to Davis and Lint (2005), approximately 13,200

wildfires were recorded on federal land (in the 10 provinces

where they mapped owl habitat) from 1994 to 2002. Thus,

around 1.7 million acres of federal land (USDA Forest

Service [FS], NPS, and BLM) burned within the range of

the northern spotted owl. Stand-replacing wildfire data

(Moeur and others 2005) suggest that about 230,000 acres

were burned with stand-replacing severity, or about 14

percent of the total area burned. The remaining 86 percent

of the area burned at lower intensities and severities across

all habitat suitabilities, and Davis and Lint were unable to

describe the effect this may have had on owl habitat.

Habitat regrowth was estimated by Moeur and others

from remeasurement of inventory plots and summarized

by tree diameter class. Diameter was only one of several

vegetation attributes used to model owl habitat, so the

crosswalk between diameter classes and owl suitability

classes was highly uncertain. This uncertainty makes

inferences about regrowth of owl habitat from transition

rates between diameter classes problematic. Davis and Lint

(2005) found a strong correlation between stand age and

habitat suitability score. They found that suitability scores

>40 can be achieved in stands as young as 30 years in the

Coast Range of Oregon and 50 years in Oregon western

Cascades. Thus, habitat suitability scores >40 can be

achieved in older clearcut harvest plantations. Irwin and

others (2000) documented owl nesting in stands as young as

45 years in western Cascades of Oregon. This probably

accounts for some of the 41 percent of habitat on nonfederal

land, which is likely at this lower end of the suitability scale.
129

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Habitat conditions were expected to improve over time

as currently unsuitable forest matures and gains attributes

to support nesting, roosting, and foraging behavior of the

owl. A high potential exists for loss of habitat, especially in

the drier portions of the owl’s range (but to varying extent

throughout the owl range), because of the risk of uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires. Whether appropriate

fuel treatment activities will be done and whether such

actions will successfully reduce risk of loss of habitat is

highly uncertain.

Population status and trends—

Estimates of northern spotted owl population trends were

based on a sample of over 10,000 marked owls captured in

study areas that encompassed more than 12 percent of the

owl’s range. Because of this robust sample, estimates of

survival, fecundity, and population change were quite

precise. I have confidence that the estimates reflect true

population trends from 1990 to 2003, but I am not confident in extending these trends into the future. Doing so

requires the assumption that vital rates over future years

do not change from those observed to date. This assumption is unlikely to hold because habitat conditions will

change over time, and because emerging threats such as

the barred owl, West Nile Virus, and sudden oak death may

also alter these rates. So will climate change: both shortterm (changes caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation)

and long-term changes could have direct and indirect

effects on the owl and its prey, increasing uncertainty of

population projections.

Are Plan Assumptions Still Valid?

A fundamental Plan assumption was that large, contiguous

blocks of habitat are necessary to support a viable population of owls. The reserve system was designed to support

large populations of owls, and reserves were spaced close

enough to permit recolonization after local disturbance.

The size and spacing of these reserves was thus designed

to reduce risk of long-term extirpation. The basic science

behind this design has not changed: no new evidence

suggests that large blocks of habitat are not critical to

the persistence of the owl. Large blocks of habitat, while

necessary, may not be sufficient to sustain owl numbers if

owl mortality rates increase because of the barred owl and

other emerging threats. I also note that large blocks of

habitat do not always equate to contiguous blocks of old

forest. In southern portions of the owl’s range, where woodrats are a primary prey, foraging habitat includes brushy

cutover or burned areas that support prey. In these areas,

large blocks of habitat are a mixture of old forest in juxtaposition with patches of shrub and small tree cover (Olson and

others 2004). The importance of this type of habitat was

recognized in the Plan, but much uncertainty exists in how

much of it will be retained over the long term in large

reserves.

The Plan also assumed that land areas between large

reserves, the matrix (including riparian reserves along permanent and intermittent streams), would function primarily

to support owl dispersal. In practice, more owl habitat is in

the matrix than was expected in the Plan. Timber harvesting

has been reduced from the expected rate, and there are legal

challenges, reduced industry capacity, and low support for

cutting older forest in the matrix, resulting in a likely delay

in decline of owls using habitat in matrix lands.

Silvicultural treatments were assumed to be implemented to

reduce fuel and manage risk of stand-replacing fire in dry

portions of the owl’s range. Such treatments were not done

to the extent that may be required and, as a result, the risk

of catastrophic loss of habitat in affected reserves may be

greater than was assumed in the Plan’s design in these areas

(see chapter 6). I reiterate, though, that the redundancy built

into the Plan through multiple reserves serves as a strong

buffer against such losses.

Marbled Murrelet

The marbled murrelet is a small seabird of the family

Alcidae whose summer distribution along the Pacific Coast

of North America extends from the Aleutian Islands of

Alaska to Santa Cruz, California. It forages primarily on

small fish in the near-shore (0 to 2 miles) marine environment. Unlike other alcids, which nest in colonies on the
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

130

ground or in burrows at the marine-terrestrial interface,

marbled murrelets nest solitarily and most often in large

trees in coniferous forests, traveling up to 50 miles inland

to reach suitable habitat (most often <25 miles). Because

marbled murrelets depend on marine conditions for foraging

and resting and on forests for nesting, both marine and forest conditions can limit murrelet numbers. Because of population declines attributed to loss of mature and old-growth

forest from harvesting, low recruitment of young, and

mortality at sea, this species was federally listed as threatened in Washington, Oregon, and California in 1992

(USFWS 1997) and listed as threatened in British Columbia

(Rodway 1990). Because of the murrelet’s association with

late-successional and old-growth forests and because of its

listed status, conservation of the marbled murrelet was an

explicit goal in the design of the Plan.

The Plan is conservative about marbled murrelet

habitat. The system of reserves was not designed, as it was

for the northern spotted owl, with specific goals for the

number and spacing of clusters of birds. Rather, the system

of congressionally reserved lands and late-successional

reserves would encompass a high proportion (about 2.0

million acres of existing murrelet nesting habitat out of a

total of 2.6 million acres) of habitat thought to exist on

federal land. In addition, murrelet surveys would be conducted before harvest on any other land in the murrelet

range. If a survey showed likely nesting, then all contiguous

existing and recruitment habitat (defined as stands that

could become nesting habitat within 25 years) within a

0.5-mile radius would be protected. These occupied sites

became small reserves, denoted as LSR3, and would be

managed to retain and restore nesting habitat.

What Was Expected Under the Plan?

The stated objective of the Plan was to maintain or restore,

nesting habitat conditions that would provide for viability

of murrelet populations, well-distributed along their current

range on federal lands (FEMAT 1993: iv). The expectation

was that the Plan “...would eventually provide substantially

more suitable habitat for marbled murrelets than currently

[that is, at the time the Plan was implemented] exists on

federal lands” (USDA and USDI 1994a). The FEMAT

used an expert panel to assess the likelihood that habitat on

Example of a large limb covered with deep moss in an oldgrowth Douglas-fir tree. Such substrates are sometimes used for

nesting by marbled murrelets in the Coast Range.

Bruce G. Marcot

federal land would support stationary and well-distributed

populations of the marbled murrelet. Following the methods

described above for the owl, the murrelet expert panel

assigned an 80-percent likelihood that habitat would be of

sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the

murrelet population to stabilize, well-distributed across

federal land over the next 100 years (outcome A) under

option 9, which eventually was adopted (with modifications)

as the Plan. The panel assigned a 20-percent likelihood for

outcome B, under which habitat would be sufficient to allow

the murrelet population to stabilize but with significant gaps

in the historical distribution that could cause some limitation

in interactions among local populations. The panel assigned

no likelihood of outcomes C or D. Thus, the panel’s assessment was that the likelihood was high that habitat conditions on federal land would allow the marbled murrelet population to stabilize and be well-distributed throughout its

range. In recognition of the major influence of marine conditions on population viability, however, including mortality

from oil spills and gill netting, and considering the potentially important role of nonfederal land, the murrelet panel
131

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

assigned a second set of ratings considering the cumulative

effects of all major factors. The murrelet panel concluded

that the likelihood that the murrelet population on federal

lands would be stationary and well-distributed was between

50 and 75 percent. The higher rating was meant to indicate

the degree of protection conferred by habitat conditions on

federal lands, assuming all other factors were not limiting;

the lower rating from the cumulative effects analysis was

an attempt to indicate the greater uncertainty in murrelet

persistence given the importance of other factors beyond

federal habitat.

Neither FEMAT nor the FSEIS nor the subsequent

monitoring plan for the murrelet (Madsen and others 1999)

provided quantitative descriptions of expected murrelet population trends or nesting habitat trends over time that could

be used to assess Plan performance over the past 10 years.

We do have some more qualitative descriptions, however:

• The amount of murrelet nesting habitat has

declined over the past 50 years, primarily because

of timber harvesting (Perry 1995).

• Murrelet populations are likely to have declined as

well, largely in response to loss of nesting habitat

(Ralph and others 1995).

• Demographic projection models estimated at the

time the Plan was initiated suggested a population

decline of 4 to 7 percent per year from 1990 to

1995 (Beissinger 1995).

• Because murrelets have naturally low reproductive

rates, population recovery will be slow, on the

order of a maximum of 3 percent per year

(USFWS 1997).

• No nesting habitat surrounding active murrelet

nesting sites will be knowingly destroyed on

federal lands.

• Catastrophic and stochastic events that decrease

the quality or quantity of nesting habitat would

affect nesting habitat at unknown rates.

• Over the long term, the amount of nesting habitat

will increase in reserves as unsuitable habitat

matures; LSRs will provide large contiguous

blocks of nesting habitat with increased interior

habitat.

• Rates of nest depredation would decrease as the

amount of interior nesting habitat increases in

reserves.

• In the short term (<50 years), the availability of

nesting habitat may remain stable or decline from

losses from fire and other natural disturbances.

• The rate of increase in the amount of nesting

habitat will be slow because trees do not develop

structures suitable to support nests until they are

large and old, often 150 or more years (USDA and

USDI 1994a).

• Habitat management on nonfederal land will affect

viability of marbled murrelets on federal land.

• Physical and biological processes in the marine

environment, which operate at multiple temporal

and spatial scales, also affect short- and long-term

population trends of the marbled murrelet,

independent of nesting habitat quantity or quality.

McShane and others (2004) developed a population

model to predict population change in each of five conservation zones composing the Plan area. Their model, which

used annual adult survival estimates obtained from detailed

mark-recapture studies in British Columbia (the only such

data available) and fecundity estimates from observing

juveniles at sea or telemetry studies, predicted annual rates

of decline varying from 3 to 5 percent per year over the first

20 years of their simulations in murrelet conservation zones

1 through 5.3 Rates of decline were generally greater going

from north (zones 1 and 2) to south (zone 5). These predictions are in line with those of Beissinger (1995). These

3

 These zones are defined in the marbled murrelet recovery plan

(USFWS 1997): conservation zone 1 is Puget Sound and Strait

of Juan de Fuca in Washington; zone 2 is the outer coast of

Washington to the Columbia River; zone 3 is Oregon south

from the Columbia to North Bend; zone 4 is North Bend south

to Shelter Cove, California; zone 5 is south to San Francisco

Bay.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

132

models do not directly account for amount of nesting habitat, and so model projections do not respond to expected

habitat trends.

What Has Happened and Did Expectations Differ

From Observations?

Baseline habitat—

When the Plan was developed, no consistent map of marbled murrelet nesting habitat was available. For purposes

of the Plan, murrelet nesting habitat was assumed to be

late-successional forest with much the same characteristics

as northern spotted owl habitat. Therefore, the existing map

of spotted owl habitat, which was itself a mosaic derived

from compilations of local maps based on agency judgment, classified satellite imagery, and existing inventory

maps, was constrained to the range of the murrelet and

used as a proxy for murrelet nesting habitat. No estimate

or map of habitat on nonfederal land was available. The

marbled murrelet effectiveness monitoring group developed

a new map, by using a consistent vegetation base (based on

vegetation data from CALVEG and IVMP, see Moeur and

others 2005), across all ownerships throughout the range

of the murrelet (Raphael and others 2006). This habitat

classification was based on estimates of patch size, conifer

cover, quadratic mean tree diameter, canopy structure,

slope, aspect, and distance from coast. Raphael and others

developed a habitat suitability model in much the same

manner as described above for owl habitat. Under this

model, habitat suitability ranges along a scale from 0 (least

suitable) to 100 (most suitable). Raphael and others used a

cutoff of suitability >60 to portray potential nesting habitat

in tables and maps. The total amount of potential nesting

habitat estimated from this new map was 1.9 million acres

on federal land within marbled murrelet zone 1 (the zone

closer to the west coast in which most murrelets occur).

The estimate of habitat on federal land from the FSEIS was

2.6 million acres in murrelet zones 1 and 2 combined (there

was no separate estimate for zone 1 alone). I expected differences in estimates as the new map was derived from a

satellite-based suitability model and because Raphael and

others defined an upper elevation limit for murrelet nesting,

and some nesting habitat considered by the FSEIS may

have been above that limit.

About 28 percent of area capable of supporting murrelet habitat is on federally administered land in the murrelet

range portion of the Plan area (18.0 million acres of federal

and nonfederal habitat-capable land); federal land supports

48 percent of higher-suitability nesting habitat (fig. 7-4) and

nonfederal land supports 52 percent (Raphael and others

2006). The contribution from nonfederal land varies: in

Washington, 77 percent; in Oregon, 55 percent; and in

California, 47 percent. On federal land, about 75 percent

of habitat-capable land is in reserved land-use allocations

and 81 percent of nesting habitat is in those allocations

(fig. 7-5). In Washington, the amount of nesting habitat

in reserves is 93 percent; in Oregon, 76 percent; and in

California, 71 percent. The Plan seems to have successfully

captured most of the existing nesting habitat in the reserve

system. The FSEIS estimated that 86 percent of murrelet

nesting habitat would be in reserves. The reserve system

includes about 63,000 acres of habitat-capable forest in

LSR3s, and these small reserves contain about 21,000 acres

of suitable habitat. I conclude that the Plan has successfully

encompassed a majority of murrelet nesting habitat within

its reserve system and that additional occupied habitat

outside the large reserves has been designated and reserved.

Habitat losses—

The intent of the Plan was to conserve most of the

remaining murrelet nesting habitat and to prevent the

subsequent loss of any habitat occupied by nesting birds,

wherever that habitat was on federal lands. The amount of

habitat was expected to increase over time, but the rate of

increase would be very slow and changes might not be

observed for many decades. In the meantime, some

unoccupied habitat would be lost from timber harvest, and

some losses might be caused by wildfire and other

disturbances.
133

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

The observed trends are in line with these expectations.

Raphael and others (2006), based on analysis of satellite

imagery and change detection methods (see Moeur and

others 2005) estimated losses of 54,900 acres of nesting

habitat on federal land over the past 10 years, mostly from

fire, and most of that in one event, the Biscuit Fire. Losses

from timber harvest totaled 3,800 acres, 74 percent of

which was outside of reserves. Losses to fire and other

stand-replacing events totaled 51,000 acres, and 93 percent

was in reserves. Total losses represent 2.3 percent of nesting

habitat over the 10 years, or a loss of 0.23 percent per year.

Rates of loss have been much greater on nonfederal land:

Raphael and others (2006) estimated that over 150,000 acres

of nesting habitat, or about 10 percent, has been lost

because of timber harvest over the past 10 years.

Figure 7-4—Estimated amounts of marbled murrelet nesting habitat (defined by using a gradient of

low to high habitat suitability scores) on federal and nonfederal lands within the Plan area (after

Raphael and others 2006 tables 9, 10).

Figure 7-5—Distribution of marbled murrelet nesting habitat (defined by using habitat

suitability scores >60) on federal and nonfederal lands compared to percentages of habitatcapable forest land in the Plan area (after Raphael and others 2006 tables 9, 10).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

134

As part of the status review for the murrelet, McShane

and others (2004), compiled agency records (almost all

from federal lands) to estimate losses to harvest and fire,

and developed an independent estimate of amounts and

losses of murrelet nesting habitat. McShane and others estimated total losses from 1992 to 2003 of 22,400 acres, 5,400

from harvest and 17,000 from fire and windstorms. They

estimated a total of 2.2 million acres of suitable habitat on

all ownerships; losses represent 1.1 percent of that amount,

or 0.11 percent per year. The Raphael and others and

McShane and others estimates apply to all habitat, whether

occupied or not. I have no estimate of the loss of occupied

habitat, so I cannot say whether the Plan objective of no

loss of occupied habitat from timber harvest was met.

Raphael and others and McShane and others differ because

of the sources of data used and the records available in each

case. Because the Raphael and others analysis is a more

thorough evaluation of the entire murrelet range and uses

change-detection methods, I believe it is more complete

than the McShane and others data.

Habitat increases—

One Plan expectation was a gradual increase in the

amount of suitable habitat as forests mature. Some evidence showed that the amount of forest with large (>20 in)-

diameter trees has increased over the first 10 years of the

Plan, based on analyses of inventory plots on national forest land in the murrelet range (Moeur 2005). Moeur tallied

the distribution of plots by mean tree diameter during two

remeasurement cycles, averaging 3.8 years apart. She estimated a net annual increase of the largest tree diameter

class (>30 in) of 0.4 percent per year over the past decade.

I do not know how much of this increase represents suitable nesting habitat. Certainly, not all of it does, because

nesting platforms (the key attribute defining suitable nesting habitat) do not generally form until trees reach diameters of 40 inches or more (Raphael 2004). Further work

will be needed to verify how much of the increase actually

has attributes of suitable habitat.

Population trends—

Murrelet populations were thought to be declining at the

start of the Plan, and I expected these declines to continue

until habitat recovered from previous losses. The marbled

murrelet effectiveness monitoring group designed a

coordinated sampling protocol and obtained population

estimates starting in 2000; yearly estimates have continued

and are reported up to year 2003 (Miller and others 2006).

The total estimated population has averaged about 18,200

birds over the 4 years of survey. Estimates vary by conservation zone (fig. 7-6), with the largest population in zone

1 (Puget Sound, Washington) and the smallest in zone 5

(north-central California). Population size did not show a

downward trend during the 4 years of study; the numbers

were relatively stationary. Given the confidence intervals

around the mean population estimates each year, Miller and

others (2006) computed that 7 years of survey would be

required to detect a 5-percent annual decline with a power

of 80 percent. I conclude little evidence exists of the

expected decline in murrelet numbers, but I recognize that

more years of survey will be needed to confirm this

conclusion with greater confidence.

Extent to Which Differences Were Caused by the

Plan

Habitat status and trend—

The Plan played a pivotal role in the fate of marbled

murrelet habitat on federal land. The Plan has been highly

successful in conserving existing murrelet nesting habitat,

and little habitat has been lost from timber harvest. Some

loss of habitat, especially in reserves, was caused by fire.

Loss of murrelet habitat from catastrophic events will

always be a risk, and such losses were expected. The

Plan has less control over risk to such losses, except to

the extent that active management in fire-prone areas

might reduce risk by managing fuel. One caution: managing forest cover to reduce fire risk could also lead to
135

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

better habitat for corvids (nest predators); silvicultural

practices may need to be fine tuned to ensure they do not

inadvertently impair nesting success of murrelets through

increasing the rate of nest depredation.

The fate of habitat on nonfederal land is beyond the

scope of the Plan, and 72 percent of habitat-capable forest

is in state or private ownership with 52 percent of murrelet

nesting habitat on these nonfederal lands. The rate of harvest on nonfederal land (1.2 percent per year) has been far

more rapid than that on federal land (0.1 percent per year).

Raphael and others (2006) found evidence of increase

in the area occupied by forests with large trees (>30 in

diameter) on federal lands. This increase is consistent with

Plan expectations; if any of this increase contributes

additional nesting habitat, however, it is sooner than was

expected. The large reserves included recruitment habitat at

the start of the Plan, and some of that habitat may not

require many years to meet the attributes of suitable nesting

habitat.

Population trends—

Marbled murrelet populations are affected by a variety of

factors, only some of which are under the Plan’s direct

influence. The Plan most directly affects populations

through its provisions for conservation and restoration of

nesting habitat, but even then the Plan’s influence extends

only to the federal land. The Plan has no influence on

marine conditions (including marine food sources) or

sources of mortality at sea such as oil spills and gill netting.

Therefore, it will be more difficult to relate changes in

marbled murrelet populations to land management under

the Plan. With the Plan conserving habitat exactly as

expected, murrelet populations could still fall because of

adverse marine conditions or because of habitat loss on

nonfederal land. Despite this uncertainty, evidence suggests

that inland habitat conditions are the major driver setting

murrelet population size. This point is illustrated in figure

7-7, which shows a very strong correlation with the total

amount of habitat and size of adjacent murrelet population

Figure 7-6—Marbled murrelet population estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals by zone

(conservation zones per USFWS 1997) and year in the area of the Plan (from Miller and others

2006).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

136

for segments of the murrelet range. Habitat seems to be the

primary driver, with marine conditions possibly contributing to residual variation along the coast.

Sources of Uncertainty

Habitat status and trend—

Sources of uncertainty in estimating the amount and

distribution of nesting habitat of the marbled murrelet are

very similar to those cited for the owl. But one additional

source is unique to the marbled murrelet. Because murrelet

nesting behavior is so cryptic, biologists have found very

few actual nests of the species. Habitat models for the

spotted owl were built from attributes of a large sample of

known owl nest sites. For the murrelet, biologists rely on

locations of “occupied behaviors” to infer nesting activity.

Occupied behaviors are observations of murrelets flying

into the canopy or circling very close above the canopy.

These behaviors are presumed to be associated with

nesting, but nesting is rarely verified. Thus, sites in which

occupied behaviors are observed may not be true nest sites.

To the extent that false positives are included in the murrelet database used to build models, these models may be

less accurate than if all locations were based on verified

nests. Furthermore, occupied behaviors are not observed

at every visit to a site; a finite likelihood exists of failing

to detect occupied behaviors even if the site is occupied.

A specific protocol (Evans Mack and others 2003) sets

the numbers of visits required to have a high likelihood

Figure 7-7—Comparisons of estimated mean murrelet population size with potential murrelet nesting

habitat (defined by using habitat suitability scores >60) by sampling strata within conservation zones

(for example, 2.1 denotes conservation zone 2, stratum 1). Zones run from north (zone 1) to south

(zone 5). See Miller and others (2006) for a description of methods used to estimate murrelet

population size. After Raphael and others (2006).
137

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

(set at 0.95) of observing occupied behavior at an occupied

site. Under this protocol, a 5-percent chance of failing to

detect occupied behavior exists, so a small number of sites

might be mistakenly classified as unoccupied and released

for timber harvest. A more reliable modeling solution

would be to conduct intensive research to identify known

nest sites and then to build models from training sites that

represent actual murrelet nests.

Uncertainty also exists in the geographic distribution

of the marbled murrelet. The FEMAT designated two zones:

zone 1 formed the area closer to the marine environment,

and zone 2 was an outer area along the eastern fringe of

the species’ range. Populations were assumed to be more

abundant in zone 1. More recent surveys have led to suggestions for substantial local contractions of zone 2, and

possibly even zone 1, especially in northern California and

southern Oregon (Alegria and others 2002, Hunter and

others 1998, Schmidt and others 2000). Agencies in those

areas have redefined the eastern boundary, where surveys

for murrelets are required prior to timber harvest, bringing

it farther to the west to match survey results. This revised

boundary has not been formally implemented in the Plan

databases; to date this revision only applies to survey

requirements. This strategy adds uncertainty in the calculation status of habitat to the extent that acres classified as

habitat may actually fall outside the revised species range.

Population status and trends—

We have only 4 years of murrelet data from which to assess

population trend. Error estimates around each year’s population estimate are fairly large, and it will take 7 or more

years before one can reliably say whether the population

is stationary, increasing, or decreasing. The data collected

so far seem to indicate a relatively stationary population,

which is at odds with the prediction, calculated from demographic models that predict the population should be declining (McShane and others 2004). A major source of

uncertainty is whether the murrelet population is closed

or open. That is, existing population models assume there

is little or no recruitment of either adults or juveniles from

outside the study population. The local population may be

declining, but populations may be being subsidized by

immigrants, perhaps from Alaska or British Columbia

where the birds are more numerous. Recruitment of birds

from outside the local range has been proposed as the most

likely explanation for observed stationary murrelet population trends in central California, despite models that

suggest a decline (Peery 2004).

Future population trends are also difficult to predict

because of uncertainties in the timing and extent of risk

factors. Catastrophic loss of habitat from uncharacteristically severe wildfire is an ever-present risk in portions of

the range. Populations at sea are subject to risk from large

oil spills. Changes in ocean currents can have profound

effects on forage fish leading to starvation or breeding

inhibition, as has been observed in other seabird populations (for example, Montevecchi and Myers 1997). Emerging threats exist from the West Nile Virus, which could

cause direct mortality to nesting birds, but the virus could

also have indirect beneficial effects. The virus is documented to kill jays, crows, and ravens, and mortality of

these birds may increase nest success of murrelets by

reducing nest depredation.

Are Plan Assumptions Still Valid?

The fundamental assumption of the Plan was that the rate of

loss of murrelet habitat in reserves would slow or stop and

that unsuitable habitat would recover. Available data support

this assumption and show that rates of loss are low and that

forest stands in reserves are on a trajectory toward higher

habitat suitability. Conservation and restoration of murrelet

nesting habitat is essential to population viability of the

species.

Although federal habitat protection is essential to

murrelet viability, it may not be sufficient, given the cumulative effects of other influences on population viability.

Scientists assumed that murrelet viability depended on a

variety of factors, many of which are not under the control

or influence of the Plan. This assumption still holds. Habitat

loss on nonfederal land, marine conditions, and threats from
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

138

disease, oil spills, and gill-netting could reduce the likelihood of population viability despite the habitat protections

built into the Plan.

The requirement for preproject surveys was assumed to

prevent the loss of any occupied sites from timber harvest. I

was not able to test this assumption, because I have no way

to assess whether sites were classified as unoccupied when

they might actually have been occupied. I can say that sites

classified as occupied were, in fact, set aside and managed

as reserves.

Past timber harvest was assumed to have lingering

effects on murrelet carrying capacity and nesting success.

I am aware of no new data to challenge this assumption.

Recent research shows that murrelet population size is

reduced as habitat is lost, and that birds do not pack into

remaining suitable habitat (Burger 2001, Raphael and others

2002a). Predator densities and rates of nest depredation are

higher in areas with a variety of tree ages, so nest success is

reduced in areas intermixed with young tree/brush habitats

(Luginbuhl and others 2001).

A major premise of the Plan is that large reserves will

support more murrelets, eventually leading to stationary or

increasing populations. Nest depredation seems to be a

major limiting factor on marbled murrelet populations.

Over half of the known murrelet nests whose fate has

been determined failed because eggs or chicks were lost

to predators, primarily jays, crows, and ravens (Manley

and Nelson 1999). Recent research suggests that predator

numbers are high in old-growth forests, such as those

expected to develop in Plan reserves (Marzluff and others

2000, Raphael and others 2002b). Habitat fragmentation

was assumed to decline as young patches within reserves

matured, creating more contiguous canopy cover, and the

rates of nest predation would decrease as forests became

less fragmented. More recent evidence suggests that rates of

nest depredation may be just as high in contiguous forest as

in fragmented stands. Murrelet populations may not grow at

the rate predicted from recovery of nesting habitat in

reserves because nest depredation could suppress successful

reproduction. We lack understanding of the full suite of

factors that affect nest success, which increases uncertainty

about the relations between amounts of habitat and murrelet

populations.

Summary Considerations

Importance of Considering Cumulative Effects

Wildlife population trends reflect the cumulative effects of

multiple interacting factors. Habitat condition on federal

land is but one of those factors, albeit the one over which

the Plan has most direct influence. Monitoring of both

habitat trends and population trends is of value: monitoring

habitat trends tells managers how well the Plan is meeting

its primary objectives; monitoring population trends tells

managers if the Plan is having the desired effect. Ideally,

population trend will track habitat trend, but we may

observe diverging trends, as we have in the case of the

northern spotted owl. In such cases, we can dig deeper to

discover whether our understanding of habitat relationships

is mistaken or whether other, perhaps unmeasured, factors

are driving population trends. What we can say with confidence is that the amount of habitat will set the carrying

capacity for wildlife populations. Carrying capacity is a

measure of the potential population size that can be supported by a given amount and distribution of suitable

habitat. The actual population may be lower than the

carrying capacity from a variety of other factors such as

hostile weather, interactions with other species, habitat

conditions outside of the planning area, disease, or other

factors that might depress a population. Observing a declining population in the face of habitat conservation does

not mean habitat is not important or that habitat conservation is not important. It means we have to look at options to

manage some of the other factors that might be driving the

population trend. Until we have more robust models of

wildlife habitat relationships, including these other factors,

it will be essential to continue monitoring both population

and habitat trends to evaluate how well the Plan is meeting

its intended objectives.
139

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Efficacy of Large Reserves for Conservation

A central tenet of the Plan was that the system of large, latesuccessional reserves would largely suffice to provide for

species and biodiversity components associated with latesuccessional and old-growth forest ecosystems. I have

found that, to an extent, this is likely true. However, the

degree to which LSRs–along with the set of other Plan land

allocations (for example, riparian reserves in matrix lands)–

suffice differs considerably by species. It also likely differs

by the specific locations chosen for the LSRs–such as

whether they happen to intersect sites of particularly suitable habitat, and if they happen to contain microenvironmental conditions and specific habitat elements used and

selected by those species. Older forest and habitat are not

synonymous. For example, I described the importance of

shrubby, early-seral vegetation in juxtaposition with older

forest as foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl in the

southern part of the owl range. Reserves may not function to

support owls in the future if this shrubby component is not

maintained as forests mature. Having large reserves, in

which large expanses of old forest provide nesting habitat

for owls and murrelets, and in which fire and other natural

disturbances can create desired early-seral conditions for

owl foraging habitat, remains a critical strategy.

One of the management dilemmas is that habitat

conditions differ among species. Creating shrubby foraging

habitat will be good for the northern spotted owl, but such

habitat will also be good for jays and crows, which depredate nests of the marbled murrelet. In this case, what is good

for the owl may be bad for the murrelet.

Efficacy of Smaller Designated Reserves

The designation of smaller reserves around owl activity

centers (LSR4s) and around occupied murrelet sites

(LSR3s) requires continuing survey effort to locate the birds

(in the case of the LSR3s), and reduces opportunities for

timber harvest in the matrix. I believe an effort could be

undertaken to reevaluate the efficacy of these smaller

reserves in light of current habitat information and population trends. I suspect it would be difficult to justify removing the provisions for spotted owls in light of their continuing population decline. At a future date, if population trends

appear more stationary, these reserve designations could be

revised. In the case of the murrelet, there may be an earlier

opportunity to revise the LSR3 designations if population

trends remain stationary and habitat continues to increase in

the larger reserves. A note of caution: although the LSR3s

and LSR4s were established around murrelet and owl

activity centers, they were also placed on the landscape to

provide smaller refugia for other species associated with

older forest, not exclusively to support murrelets and owls.

The owl activity centers were convenient objects to use in

directing the field offices to place small blocks of older forest on the landscape. Even when they are no longer occupied by spotted owls, they still remain as protected patches

of older forest, so regardless of their efficacy for owls they

would still have conservation value. In essence, the LSR3s

and LSR4s were built around owls and murrelets, but their

function extends beyond those two species.

The Plan remains the boldest effort ever undertaken by

federal agencies to meet large-scale biodiversity objectives.

As part of this broad biodiversity objective, the Plan had an

objective to provide habitat conditions that would support

viable populations of the owl and the murrelet. In the short

term, the objective for owls and murrelets was to conserve

much of the best remaining habitat. The Plan has been quite

successful in meeting this objective. The Plan also has a

long-term objective: create a system of reserves containing

desired sizes and distributions of large blocks of suitable

habitat. Evidence suggests that habitat trends are on course

toward this objective, but many more decades will be

needed to judge the Plan’s success. I have shown that the

Plan has been remarkably successful in conserving habitat

over its first 10 years of implementation, but much work

remains. Owl numbers continue to decline. Time will tell if

the Plan will fully succeed.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

140

Acknowledgments

I thank Joe Lint and Ray Davis for providing spotted owl

habitat data, and Melinda Moeur for providing information

on older forest transition rates. Beth Galleher provided GIS

support and analyses. Robert Anthony, Eric Forsman, and

Gail Olson provided information on spotted owl population

demographics. I thank Jon Martin, Nancy Molina, Tom

Spies, Gordon Reeves, Danny Lee, Beth Galleher, Joe Lint,

Ray Davis, and Martha Brookes for their comments on an

earlier draft.

References

Alegria, J.; Folliard, L.; Lint, J.; Madsen, S.; Max, T.;

Webb, L. 2002. Southwest Oregon inland survey

assessment for marbled murrelets. 17 p. [Plus attachments]. Final Report. Portland OR: U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. On file with: U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office,

2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266.

Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Franklin, A.B. [and

others]. [In press]. Status and trends in demography

of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife Monographs.

Beissinger, S. 1995. Population trends of the marbled

murrelet projected from demographic analyses. In:

Ralph, C.J.; Hunt, G.L.; Raphael, M.G.; Piatt, J.F., eds.

Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PSW-152. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station: 385-393.

Bigley, R.E.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Habitat trends. In:

Courtney, S.P.; Blakesley, J.A.; Bigley, R.E.; Cody,

M.L.; Dumbacher, J.P.; Fleischer, R.C.; Franklin, A.B.;

Franklin, J.F.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Marzluff, J.M.;

Sztukowski, L., eds. Scientific evaluation of the status

of the northern spotted owl. Portland OR: Sustainable

Ecosystems Institute: 1-35. Chap. 6. http://www.sei.org/

owl/finalreport/finalreport.htm. (January 2006).

Blakesley, J.A.; La Haye, W.; Marzluff, J.M.; Noon,

B.R.; Courtney, S. 2004. Demography. In: Courtney,

S.P.; Blakesley, J.A.; Bigley, R.E.; Cody, M.L.;

Dumbacher, J.P.; Fleischer, R.C.; Franklin, A.B.;

Franklin, J.F.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Marzluff, J.M.;

Sztukowski, L., eds. Scientific evaluation of the status

of the northern spotted owl. Portland OR: Sustainable

Ecosystems Institute: 1-49. Chap. 8. http://www.sei.org/

owl/finalreport/finalreport.htm. (January 2006).

Boyce, M.S.; Irwin, L.L.; Barker, R. 2005. Demographic

meta-analysis: synthesizing vital rates for spotted owls.

Journal of Applied Ecology. 42: 38-49.

Burger, A.E. 2001. Using radar to estimate populations and

assess habitat associations of marbled murrelets.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 65: 696–715.

Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R.; White, G.C. 1996.

Meta-analysis of vital rates of the northern spotted owl.

Studies in Avian Biology. 17: 92-101.

Courtney, S.P.; Blakesley, J.A.; Bigley, R.E.; Cody, M.L.;

Dumbacher, J.P.; Fleischer, R.C.; Franklin, A.B.;

Franklin, J.F.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Marzluff, J.M.;

Sztukowski, L., eds. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the

status of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR:

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. http://sei.org/owl/

finalreport/finalreport.htm. (January 2006).

Davis, R.; Lint, J. 2005. Habitat status and trend. In: Lint,

J., tech. coord. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10

years (1994-2003): status and trends of northern spotted

owl populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-648. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station: 21-82.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA]; 16 U.S.C. 1531-

1536, 1538-1540.
141

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Evans Mack, D.; Ritchie, W.P.; Nelson, S.; KuoHarrison, E.; Harrison, P.; Hamer, T.E., eds.

2003. Methods for surveying marbled murrelets

in forests: a revised protocol for land management

and research. Pacific Seabird Group. http://

www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/

revMAMU_ISP_Jan_03.pdf. (January 2003).

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department

of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Franklin, A.B.; Anderson, D.R.; Gutiérrez, R.J.;

Burnham, K.P. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and

fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs. 70(4):

539–590.

Gutiérrez, R.J.; Cody, M.L.; Courtney, S.P.; Kennedy, D.

2004. Assessment of the potential threat of the northern

barred owl. In: Courtney, S.P.; Blakesley, J.A.; Bigley,

R.E.; Cody, M.L.; Dumbacher, J.P.; Fleischer, R.C.;

Franklin, A.B.; Franklin, J.F.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Marzluff,

J.M.; Sztukowski, L., eds. Scientific evaluation of the

status of the northern spotted owl. Portland OR:

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute: 1-35. Chap. 7. http://

www.sei.org/owl/finalreport/finalreport.htm. (January

2006).

Hunter, J.E.; Schmidt, K.N.; Stauffer, H.B.; Miller, S.L.;

Ralph, C.J.; Roberts, L. 1998. Status of the marbled

murrelet in the inner north coast ranges of California.

Northwestern Naturalist. 79(3): 92-103.

Irwin, L.L.; Rock, D.F.; Miller G.P. 2000. Stand structures

used by northern spotted owls in managed forests.

Journal of Raptor Research. 34(3): 175-186.

Kelly, E.G.; Forsman, E.D.; Anthony, R.G. 2003.

Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? Condor.

105: 45-53.

Lint, J.; Noon, B.; Anthony, R.; Forsman, E.; Raphael,

M.; Collopy, M.; Starkey, E. 1999. Northern spotted

owl effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest

Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-440. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p.

Lint, J.B., tech. coord. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the

first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trends of northern

spotted owl populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-648. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 176 p.

Luginbuhl, J.M.; Marzluff, J.M.; Bradley, J.E.; Raphael,

M.G.; Varland, D.E. 2001. Corvid survey techniques

and the relationship between corvid relative abundance

and nest predation. Journal of Field Ornithology. 72:

556–572.

Madsen S.; Evans, D.; Hamer, T.; Henson, P.; Miller, S.;

Nelson, S.K.; Roby, D.; Stapanian, M. 1999. Marbled

murrelet effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-439.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Manley, I.A.; Nelson, S.K. 1999. Habitat characteristics

associated with nest success and predation at marbled

murrelet nest trees. Pacific Seabirds. 26: 40.

Marzluff, J.M.; Raphael, M.G.; Sallabanks, R. 2000.

Understanding the effects of forest management on

avian species. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28: 1132–1143.

McComb, W.C.; McGrath, M.T.; Spies, T.A.; Vesely, D.

2002. Models for mapping potential habitat at landscape scales: an example using northern spotted owls.

Forest Science. 48: 203-216.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

142

McShane, C.; Hamer, T.; Carter, H.; Swartzman, G.;

Friesen, V.; Ainley, D.; Tressler, R.; Nelson, K.;

Burger, A.; Spear, L.; Mohagen, T.; Martin, R.;

Henkel, L.; Prindle, K.; Strong, C.; Keany, J. 2004.

Evaluation report for the 5-year status review of the

marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. 272 p. Contract No: 101813CO46. Portland, OR:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. On file with:

Barry Mulder, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE

11th Ave., Portland OR 97232.

Miller, S.L.; Ralph, C.J.; Raphael, M.G.; Strong, G.;

Thompson, C.; Baldwin, J.; Huff, M.H. Falxa, G.A.

2006. At-sea monitoring of marbled murrelet population

status and trend in the Northwest Plan area. In: Huff,

M.; Raphael, M.G.; Miller, S.L.; Nelson, S.K.; Baldwin,

J., tech. coords. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10

years (1994-2003): status and trends of populations

and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-650. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station: 31-60. Chap 3.

Moeur, M. 2005. Vegetation monitoring leader. Unpublished data. On file with: Melinda Moeur, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 333 SW First

Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.

Moeur, M.; Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.; Alegria, J.;

Browning, J.; Cissel, J.; Cohen, W.B.; Demeo, T.E.;

Healey, S.; Warbington, R. 2005. Northwest Forest

Plan–the first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trend of

late-successional and old-growth forest. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-646. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 142 p.

Montevecchi, W.A.; Myers, R.A. 1997. Centurial and

decadal oceanographic influences on changes in

northern gannet populations and diets in the north-west

Atlantic: implications for climate change. ICES Journal

of Marine Science. 54: 608–614.

National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA]; Act

of October 22, 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1600.

Olson, G.S.; Glenn, E.M.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman,

E.D.; Reid, J.A.; Loschl, P.J.; Ripple, W.J. 2004.

Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted

owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of

Wildlife Management. 68: 1039-1053.

Peery, M.Z. 2004. Ecology of marbled murrelets in central

California. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

210 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Perry, D.A. 1995. Status of forest habitat of the marbled

murrelet. In: Ralph, C.J.; Hunt, G.L.; Raphael, M.G.;

Piatt, J.F., eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled

murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152. Albany, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station: 381-384.

Pipkin, J. 1998. The Northwest Forest Plan revisited. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Office of Policy and

Analysis. 117 p. On file with: Human and Natural

Resources Interaction Program, Forestry Sciences

Laboratory, 620 S.W. Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR

97205.

Ralph, C.J.; Hunt, G.L., Jr.; Raphael, M.G.; Piatt, J.F.

1995. Ecology and conservation of the marbled

murrelet in North America: an overview. In: Ralph, C.J.;

Hunt, G.L., Jr.; Raphael, M.G.; Piatt, J.F., eds. Ecology

and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station: 3-22.

Raphael, M.G. 2004. Predicting abundance of marbled

murrelet nesting platforms from tree diameter.

[Abstract]. Northwestern Naturalist. 85: 87.

Raphael, M.G.; Evans Mack, D.; Cooper, B.A. 2002a.

Landscape-scale relationships between abundance of

marbled murrelets and distribution of nesting habitat.

Condor. 104: 331-342.
143

Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results

Raphael, M.G.; Evans Mack, D.; Marzluff, J.M.;

Luginbuhl, J. 2002b. Effects of forest fragmentation on

populations of the marbled murrelet. Studies in Avian

Biology. 25: 221-235.

Raphael, M.G.; Galleher, B.M.; Huff, M.H.; Miller, S.L.;

Nelson, S.K.; Young, R.D. 2006. Spatially-explicit

estimates of potential nesting habitat for the marbled

murrelet. In: Huff, M.; Raphael, M.G.; Miller, S.L.;

Nelson, S.K.; Baldwin, J., tech. coords. Northwest

Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): status

and trends of populations and nesting habitat for the

marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-650.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 97-146.

Chap. 5.

Raphael, M.G.; Young, J.A.; McKelvey, K.; Galleher,

B.M.; Peeler, K.C. 1994. A simulation analysis of

population dynamics of the northern spotted owl in

relation to forest management alternatives. In: Final

environmental impact statement on management of

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest

related species within the range of the northern spotted

owl: 1-16. Vol. II, App. J-3.

Rodway, M.S. 1990. Status report on the marbled murrelet

in Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Committee on the

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 64 p.

Schmidt, K.N.; Hunter, J.E.; Stauffer, H.B.; Miller, S.L.;

Ralph, C.J.; Roberts, L. 2000. Status and distribution

of the marbled murrelet in interior northwestern

California: final report. Eureka, CA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers National

Forest. 28 p.

Thomas, J.W.; Forsman, E.D.; Lint, J.B.; Meslow, E.C.;

Noon, B.R.; Verner, J. 1990. A conservation strategy

for the northern spotted owl: report to the Interagency

Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the

northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and

Wildlife Service, National Park Service. 427 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest

related species within the range of the northern spotted

owl. Portland, OR: 526 p. Vol. 1.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994b. Record of

decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau

of Land Management planning documents within the

range of the northern spotted owl. Standards and

guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the

range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication

unknown]. 74 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]. 1992. Recovery

plan for the northern spotted owl—final draft. Portland,

OR. 812 p. 2 vol.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1997. Recovery

plan for the threatened marbled murrelet

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon,

and California. Portland, OR: Region 1. 202 p.

Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of

habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47:

8893-8901.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-651

144

Continue