of Northwest Forests

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Bioregional Assessment

July 2020
The USDA Forest Service makes no warranty, expressed or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness 

for a particular purpose, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, completeness or utility of 

these geospatial data, or for the improper or incorrect use of these geospatial data. These geospatial data and related maps or 

graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The data and maps may not be used to determine 

title, ownership, legal descriptions or boundaries, legal jurisdiction, or restrictions that may be in place on either public or 

private land. Natural hazards may or may not be depicted on the data and maps, and land users should exercise due caution. 

The data are dynamic and may change over time. The user is responsible to verify the limitations of the geospatial data and to 

use the data accordingly.
Dear Reader

The Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest Regions land management of the USDA Forest 

Service are pleased to introduce the Bioregional Assessment of Northwest Forests. For the last 

several years, in both formal and informal settings, we heard from many stakeholders that 

our land management plans and the Northwest Forest Plan amendment, covering western 

Washington, Oregon, and northern California, need updating. Among other issues, we heard 

that there is an urgent need to address risk to communities and ecosystems from wildfires, 

insects and disease, and other stressors. We also heard that we need to better balance and 

disclose the expected tradeoffs between economic and environmental issues. 

As land managers, we reviewed monitoring and internal feedback and identified that the 

19 land management plans in the Northwest were not fully achieving desired outcomes, 

partly due to tremendous changes in ecological and socioeconomic conditions in the last 

two decades. We believe the landscape-scale approach of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan 

amendment has served us well across many resource topics. However, we recognize that 

given the geographic diversity of the 24 million acres in focus, updates to national forests 

and grasslands plan direction can help us address the unique challenges national forest and 

grasslands face to more fully achieve ecological, economic, and social desired outcomes across 

the landscape.

We recognize forest land management updates initiate a complex planning process that can be 

time intensive for our stakeholders, partners, local governments and the Forest Service. This 

is especially true when numerous forests are bound together through amendments such as the 

1994 Northwest Forest Plan. Given this challenge, we believe this Bioregional Assessment can 

inform options to efficiently and effectively update plans while maintaining alignment of plan 

direction where and when applicable to address broad-scale issues. 

This Bioregional Assessment is not intended to comprehensively address everything that might 

warrant a change in our land management plans. Instead, we focus on the most compelling 

issues that need updating and highlight those that are shared across the broad landscape, such 

as species habitat and wildland fire. We drew upon the best available science and, working 

collaboratively with our research stations, we designed this assessment to communicate key 

issues clearly and concisely. Through assessment of the most important information evaluated, 

we will identify the need to change existing land management plan direction.

What we give you in this document is only the beginning of the journey toward updating our 

land management plans. We will work together to develop the specific solutions that fully 

address recommendations in this assessment. We are putting in place robust opportunities for 

your engagement and feedback throughout the planning process. We anticipate a challenging 

task balancing the ecological and socioeconomic tradeoffs present in such a dynamic 

landscape. We value your ideas and appreciate your willingness to work with us to discover 

innovative approaches to achieve this goal. 

Thank you,

Randy Moore, Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region

Glenn Casamassa, Regional Forester Pacific Northwest Region
page

2 INTRODUCTION

Table of contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 03

Reviews information relevant to the following chapters, including 

maps of boundaries and conservation strategies.

Chapter 1 Serving People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Recognizes the importance of considering impacts to communities 

from land management planning.

Chapter 2 Management Recommendations. . . . . . . . . 21

Discusses our 10 key recommendations for modernizing land 

management plans.

Chapter 3 What is Working Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Acknowledges that some existing land management direction is 

working well. 

Chapter 4 Management Challenges and Opportunities 

for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Discusses management challenges and potential opportunities for 

change that support chapter 2 recommendations.

Chapter 5 Geographic Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Shows where management challenges are occurring and what issues 

might be addressed with a consistent approach across multiple 

national forests and grasslands.

Next Steps and How to Stay Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 

Offers information about what’s coming next and encourages 

continued public engagement.

Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 
page

3INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is exploring options to modernize 19 land management plans in the 

Bioregional Assessment (BioA) area (figures Intro-1 and Intro-2). The 19 plans include all those in the Northwest Forest 

Plan amendment (NWFP) and two other adjacent 

national forests. The BioA will help us explore 

innovative planning strategies to more efficiently and 

effectively manage national forests and grasslands 

with similar as well as differing issues and potential 

solutions, while considering community and 

stakeholder interests. Rather than being confined by 

administrative boundaries, our regional approach to 

modernizing land management plans in the BioA area 

will be an opportunity to understand the individual 

contributions of each national forest and grassland as 

well as their collective contributions to community 

needs and ecological integrity across a broad 

landscape. The BioA is focused primarily on national 

forests and grasslands but, to assess ecological and social connections across the landscape, we considered some other 

federal and non-federal lands. The BioA assesses current conditions and trends across a broad landscape and serves as 

a foundation for future land management planning.

What the Bioregional Assessment is Not

The BioA does not make land management planning 

decisions; it is not a decision document. It will not replace 

development of individual forest or grassland assessments; 

instead, it will inform those assessments, and is intended to

reduce the time it takes to complete them.

This is not a comprehensive document and purposefully 

lacks details on specific solutions. The BioA does not 

include specific planning components and is intentionally 

non-prescriptive. Forest, project, or site-specific topics are 

not discussed in this document but will be collaboratively 

developed during public and stakeholder engagements as 

the planning process continues.

When Land Management Plans in the Bioregion Were Enacted

1995

Klamath and Butte Valley 

Grassland

Six Rivers National Forest

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Mendocino National Forest

1991

Modoc 

National Forest

1989

Crooked River 

National Grassland

Ochoco National Forest 

* Siskiyou National Forest 

* Fremont-Winema 

National Forest

1990

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie

National Forest

Olympic National Forest

Okanogan-Wenatchee 

National Forest

Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Mt. Hood National Forest

Siuslaw National Forest

Willamette National Forest

Deschutes National Forest

Umpqua National Forest

* Fremont-Winema National Forest

* Rogue River National Forest

1993

Lassen 

National Forest

* Rogue River and Siskiyou National 

Forests were combined in 2004. 

Fremont and Winema National 

Forests were combined in 2002. 

Each forest is currently managed 

under a land management plan 

enacted before merging.

Figure Intro-1—Land management plans in the BioA area are more than 25 years old. There have been changes in 

social, ecological, and economic conditions, as well as in resource demands, and new scientific information and policy is 

available. We need to make sure that land management plans are responsive to current issues and conditions.
page

4 INTRODUCTION

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N O R E G O N

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

COLUMBIA RIVER

GORGE NATIONAL

SCENIC AREA

SIU

S

L

AW

FREMONT - WIN EMA

OLY MPIC

GIFFORD

PINCHOT

OCHOCO

MOUNT

HOOD

UMPQUA

K L A M A T H MODOC

M

E

N

D

O

CI N

O

SHASTA - 

TRINITY

S I X

R I V

E

R

S

OK A N O G A N - W E N A T C H E E

M

T. B

A

K

E

R - S

N

O

Q

UA

L

MIE

CROOKED RIVER

NATIONAL GRASSLAND

WI L

L

A

M

E

T

T

E

LASSEN

R O G U E R I V E R - 

S I S K I Y O U

DESCHUTES

00 E 

ary

ts and Grasslands

ioA area)

ts and Grasslands

A area)

y

Figure Intro-2—The BioA area is about 

24 million acres and includes whole 

national forests and two other adjacent 

national forests that were not included in 

the Northwest Forest Plan area, which 

is about 20 million acres and is the 

range of the northern spotted owl.

24 million acres is 

almost as big as Iceland

!

!

Por

Eugene 

Me

San 

Olym

Eureka

SIU

S

L

AW

OLY MPIC

K 

SHA

T

S I X

R I V

E

R

S

R O G U E 

S I S K 

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

NWFP Boundary

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA Boundary
page

5INTRODUCTION

The BioA is grounded in science, land management experience, and feedback received during community listening 

sessions. To compile this document, the Forest Service Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest development team 

relied on nearly 25 years of monitoring data1 and many information sources, including the 2018 Synthesis of Science to 

Inform Land Management within the Northwest Forest Plan Area,

2

 other adjacent-area science syntheses,3 the 2015 public 

listening sessions, fire-risk assessments, and state action plans. 

Shared Stewardship

“Shared Stewardship is about working together in an 

integrated way to make decisions and take actions on the 

land.” — USDA Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen

Today’s Forest Service land managers face a range of urgent 

challenges, including uncharacteristic wildfires, increasing 

recreation needs, conflicting public needs, degraded 

watersheds, and insect and disease epidemics. We are 

committed to a shared stewardship strategy to address 

these challenges by working collaboratively to identify 

priorities for landscape-scale treatments and working with 

a variety of partners to do the right work in the right place 

and at the right scale. By coordinating at the state level, 

we will be able to increase the scope and scale of critical 

forest treatments that support communities and improve 

forest conditions.

The shared stewardship strategy builds upon a foundation 

of collaborative work, such as the Joint Chiefs’ Landscape 

Restoration Partnership, the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, and the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program. The strategy also builds on authorities created or expanded in the 2018 Omnibus Bill and the 2018 

Farm Bill, such as the Good Neighbor Authority. The Forest Service will build on the foundation to work more closely with 

states, Tribes, and other partners to set cross-boundary priorities.

The BioA was informed by 19 public listening sessions held throughout the Northwest in the spring of 2015. During the 

sessions, we gathered public thoughts and concerns about revising land management plans in the BioA area. We learned 

that there is a need to balance local values and economic considerations with environmental concerns, more fully consider 

fire management and risk, work to meet the NWFP timber projections, focus more on recreation, improve road maintenance 

and safety, protect water quality and watershed health, and avoid single-species management. We also heard that we 

should keep much of what is working well, like the conservation networks in the NWFP. We value public feedback and are 

committed to a transparent planning process as we continue to improve trust and build relationships throughout the entire 

planning process.

In the spring of 2019, the BioA team held meetings with 

more than 220 Forest Service employees working on the 

national forests and grasslands in the BioA area. Their 

feedback helped us better understand the opportunities 

and challenges these national forests and grasslands face 

when implementing their land management plans. 

Based on what we heard from the public and our 

employees, we developed five categories to organize the 

findings and recommendations presented in the BioA—

ecological integrity, fire and fuels, sustainable timber, 

habitat management, and sustainable recreation. 

The Forest Service will continue to engage with our 

publics and stakeholders throughout the entire land 

management planning modernization effort. A Northwest 

Forest Plan Modernization webpage provides updates and 

opportunities for further public engagement.

19 Public Listening Sessions

1 https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/reo/monitoring/

2 Spies and others, 2018. https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/page/synthesis-science-inform-land-management-within-northwest-forest-plan-area

3 Long and others, 2014 - Sierra Nevada Science Synthesis (2014); Dumroese and others, 2018 - Northern California Plateaus Science Synthesis in

progress; Stine and others, 2014 - Eastside Moist Mixed Conifer Science Synthesis (2014); Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997 - Interior Columbia Basin

Assessment (1997).
page

6 INTRODUCTION

Forest Service Collaboratives

There are more than 40 local and four 

nationally chartered Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program4 collaborative 

groups across the BioA area. For decades, 

the Forest Service has been committed to 

and engaged in collaboration to address 

local community priorities, build community 

capacity, leverage resources, meet goals, 

and increase benefits. Collaboratives have 

played important roles in bridging rural and 

urban needs and moving beyond bilateral 

relationships toward large-scale, integrated 

collaboration with diverse stakeholders. 

The BioA benefited from reviews by a science synthesis team working with the Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest and 

Pacific Northwest Research Stations. Monitoring efforts to verify whether land management plans were achieving the 

desired results have been a successful key element of the NWFP. Research results and monitoring reports, which were 

captured in the 2018 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area, provided the 

team with an up-to-date review of scientific literature about the national forests and grasslands within the NWFP area. 

Forest Service assessments evaluate readily available information on land management plan topics that are appropriate 

and relevant. Although new analysis or studies aren’t initiated during an assessment process, the assessment can 

help us identify information gaps that should be addressed as we move forward with the planning process. During our 

future land management planning efforts, we will conduct further analysis; develop or revise plan components; engage 

stakeholders, Tribes, and local governments; and conduct an environmental review on the affected environment, as 

required under the National Environmental Policy Act, regulations, and Forest Service policy.

The NWFP and other multi-land management 

plan amendments have guided Forest Service land 

managers across Washington, Oregon, and northern 

California with a landscape-level approach to land 

management. Some aspects of this approach have 

been working well. Forests have worked collaboratively 

toward common objectives across administrative 

boundaries guided by direction associated with 

Land Use Allocations (figure Intro-3). Forest Service 

land managers have shared learning and adaptation 

under monitoring programs and the survey and 

manage standards and guidelines. They’ve leveraged 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy as well as Pacific 

Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH) and Inland Fish 

Strategy (INFISH) Aquatic Conservation Strategies 

to restore fisheries and link aquatic and terrestrial 

habitat, and they’ve addressed species conservation 

under the Sierra Nevada Framework5 (figure Intro-4).

Science Shows 

Increased Threats 

and Concerns

Three significant 

ecological threats 

in the Bioregional 

Assessment area are 

invasive species, such 

as the barred owl; 

wildfire because the 

area is increasingly 

likely to experience 

large, uncharacteristic 

fires; and climate 

change, which is 

affecting rates 

of tree mortality, 

temperatures 

of streams, and 

frequency and 

intensity of floods. 

Invasive Species 

Uncharacteristically 

Severe Wildfire

Climate Change

4 https://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/

5 USDA Forest Service, 2004.
page

7INTRODUCTION

Northwest

Forest Plan

Land Use Allocations

Congressional For specific purposes such as 

national parks and monuments, 

Reserved wilderness areas, wild and scenic 

(28%) rivers, and national wildlife refuges.

Latesuccessional 

Reserves

(22%)

Old-growth ecosystems for 

marbled murrelet and northern 

spotted owl habitat (limited 

thinning and salvage allowed). 

Managed 

Latesuccessional 

Areas

(<1%)

For northern spotted owls and 

rare and locally endemic species 

at a landscape scale where regular 

and frequent wildfires occur. 

Adaptive To develop and test new 

Management management practices that 

Areas integrate and achieve ecological, 

economic, and social objectives. (5%)

Where plan objectives preclude 

Administratively programmed timber harvest, such 

Withdrawn as recreation and scenic areas, 

Areas backcountry, and other non timberharvest areas. (6%)

Areas along all streams, 

Riparian wetlands, ponds, and lakes where 

Reserves conservation of aquatic and 

(19%) riparian-dependent terrestrial 

species is emphasized.

Federal land outside the above 

Matrix six categories where the most 

(20%) timber harvest and other 

silvicultural activities occur.

Figure Intro-3—Land use allocations are a central feature of the NWFP. Each allocation has specific direction to help ensure 

consistent management wherever that allocation occurs.

Northwest Forest Plan Amendment

The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan amended the land management plans on the 

national forests and grassland in the range of the northern spotted owl. The 

amendment was developed in response to mounting public concern and legal 

battles that halted timber harvesting in old forests throughout the owl’s range. 

Approval of the amendment allowed timber management to continue with new 

operating restrictions, while habitat management for northern spotted owls, marbled 

murrelets, other species associated with old forests, and aquatic species was 

achieved. However, neither the goal to maintain a viable timber industry to sustain 

rural communities and economies nor the goal to recover habitat for the northern 

spotted owl has been achieved.
page

8 INTRODUCTION

Figure Intro-4—Conservation strategies amending land management plans on national forests and grasslands across 

the BioA area. Most of the national forests in the BioA area were amended by the NWFP (72 percent) but INFISH 

(14 percent), PACFISH (3 percent), and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (10 percent) also influence land 

management plans within the BioA area.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N O R E G O N

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 10050km

INFISH

Northwest Forest Plan

Sierra Nevada Forest

Plan Amendment

PACFISH

BioA Boundary

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

Conservation Strategies on 

National Forests and Grasslands
page

9INTRODUCTION

Although there are benefits from consistent land management policy, land managers struggle with a one size fits all 

management approach that does not always fit the circumstances. For example, some plan direction hasn’t worked 

well in distinguishing between the dry and wet forest ecosystems across the national forests and grasslands in the 

BioA area, especially given the fire adapted ecology of some forests. The landscape-level amendments have focused 

on protecting and developing habitat for aquatic and old forest-dependent species, and they don’t necessarily reflect 

today’s understanding of dynamic landscapes. Some habitat types in the wetter parts of the region, such as vegetation 

that emerges after forest-replacing disturbances, are becoming scarce across the landscape. And, although the Forest 

Service is one of the largest suppliers of outdoor recreational opportunities in the area, the NWFP and other land 

management plans and amendments lack modern direction supporting sustainable recreation. 

The BioA offers management recommendations to address some of these challenges. As the modernization effort 

moves into individual national forest and grassland assessments, analyses, and planning, we will use the BioA as a tool 

during conversations with diverse stakeholders to more fully address the social aspects surrounding natural 

resource management. 

We acknowledge that land management planning alone won’t resolve conflicts in values or tradeoffs. We are 

committed to learning how and why stakeholders hold different values and to providing transparent public engagement 

opportunities throughout the entire planning process to increase shared learning and build trusting relationships. 

We believe that improving and maintaining trust among the Forest Service, Tribes, other agencies, local partners, 

and communities is essential to developing broadly supported land management plans, which help ensure that we’re 

moving toward the desired conditions on the lands we manage.6 With public and stakeholder participation, we’ll 

determine what current land management plan direction should be carried forward and what can be improved upon 

based on new information, today’s issues, and what best meets the needs of today’s communities and stakeholders.

What are Land 

Management Plans 

and Monitoring 

Plans and why we 

do them

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires that every national 

forest and grassland develop and maintain a land management plan. Plans set 

the overall management direction for a forest or grassland, guiding projects 

and activities on the ground. The process for developing and revising land 

management plans, along with the required content of plans, is outlined in 

Forest Service planning regulations, often referred to as the planning rule. The 

2012 planning rule created a collaborative and science-based planning process 

to guide management of national forests and grasslands so that lands are 

ecologically sustainable and contribute to social and economic sustainability. The 

planning rule emphasizes public involvement through every step of the planning 

process and specifies working with Tribal, state, and local governments. 

Land management plans have integrated components that guide land 

management decision-making. Desired conditions are a description of specific 

social, economic and/or ecological characteristics of the plan area towards 

which progress can be made. Objectives are measurable and time-specific 

statements that, if achieved, would contribute to maintaining or reaching the 

desired conditions. Standards are a mandatory constraint on project and activity 

decision-making, often expressed as sideboards that are established to help 

achieve desired conditions. Guidelines are like standards, but they allow for 

departure from the terms, if the purpose of the guideline is met. Specific lands 

within a plan area are determined to be suitable or not suitable for various 

uses or activities, such as timber production, grazing, and road construction, 

based on the desired conditions for those lands. Suitability of lands is a 

required plan component, but need not be identified for every use or activity. 

A land management plan is also required to have a plan monitoring program. 

A broader-scale monitoring strategy is developed at the regional level for 

monitoring questions that are best answered at a scale larger than one forest or 

grassland. We use monitoring information to determine if changes are needed 

to the plan direction, the management activities, the monitoring program or, if 

we should reassess the current conditions and trends.

6 Cerveny and others, 2018.
page

10INTRODUCTION

Most land management plans in the BioA area were written about 30 years ago, and a lot has changed since they 

were adopted and amended. Communities are better informed and are interested in working with the Forest Service 

to contribute to land management approaches and planning solutions that tackle complex social, economic, and 

ecological challenges across multiple boundaries and ecosystems. Today, there’s a greater expectation that national 

forests and grasslands provide a range of ecosystem services, such as clean air and water. These lands also help people 

and communities build relationships with nature and serve as a repository of cultural and natural treasures for 

future generations.

Based on the findings in the BioA, the Forest Service may approach individual land management plan modernization 

by grouping national forests and grasslands based on geography, common issues, or ecosystems, if consistent 

management approaches are warranted. Or, it might be appropriate to complete region-wide or sub-region-wide plan 

amendments to modernize plans and ensure that consistent direction is developed and applied at the appropriate 

scale. The Forest Service might decide to combine some modernization approaches, and we’ll consider other options, 

such as updates to Forest Service policy and regional forester direction. Regardless of the adopted planning strategy, 

we will sustainability manage national forests and grasslands in the BioA area to deliver long-term benefits and services 

to the communities and stakeholders that rely on our national forests and grasslands.

Roadmap

The BioA contains five chapters, bookended by an Introduction and Next Steps. There’s a glossary at the end of 

the document to help clarify some words and terms used in the document and a reference section, also at the end, 

that provides a citation for each of the in-text references. After the Introduction, we focus on the importance of the 

communities we serve and the many benefits and services that national forests and grasslands can and do provide 

(chapter 1). Delivering the bottom line up front, we dive right into our 10 key management recommendations in chapter 

2, summarizing potential updates to the existing land management plans in the BioA area. In chapter 3, you’ll read 

about what’s been working well under the existing plans, suggesting that some guidance and direction should be 

retained as we move through the modernization process. Chapter 4 acknowledges that there have been management 

challenges, and we talk about the potential opportunities for change that support the recommendations in chapter 2. 

Chapter 5 is an overview of key geographic considerations highlighting where similar challenges and opportunities for 

change are occurring across the landscape. The BioA closes with some initial thoughts on the next steps that we might 

take together as we move toward modernizing the Forest Service land management plans in the BioA area. 
page

11CHAPTER 

2 CHAPTER 1

Chapter 1

Serving People 

Caring for the land and serving people is the motto of the Forest Service, which means we’re thoughtful about 

balancing the short- and long-term needs of people and nature. We do this by working in collaboration with Tribes, 

communities, and our partners; providing access to resources and experiences that promote economic, ecological, and 

social vitality; and connecting people to the land.

National forests and grasslands deliver significant value for all citizens. They provide us with clean air and water, habitat 

for plants and animals, and natural settings and recreational opportunities. And, they deliver essential commodities for 

our benefit today and for the benefit of future generations. 

Biological diversity is critical to sustaining healthy ecosystems and provides a variety of social and economic values to 

people. The plants, animals, and fungi within the BioA area support traditional and cultural uses, recreation activities, 

and connections to nature. Money spent by anglers, hunters, and wildlife watchers on national forests and grasslands 

within the BioA area contributes considerably to local and regional economies.7 

The benefits of national forests and grasslands improve the quality of our lives. Some benefits, such as timber, 

have an easily identifiable monetary value. Others, such as cultural heritage, have tangible forms of value, such as 

artifacts, buildings, and landscapes, and also intangible forms of value that support value systems, beliefs, traditions 

and lifestyles. While there has been no one common community experience during the past few decades, small rural 

communities are generally more susceptible than urban communities to changes in how we sustain and deliver both 

monetary and non-monetary benefits. As such, changes in federal land management can lead to significant impacts to 

day-to-day life. 

More than 70 federally recognized American Indian Tribes have lands or ancestral territory within the BioA area and 

maintain a government-to-government relationship with the Forest Service. In this document, we use the term “Tribes” 

to acknowledge those recognized as sovereign by the U.S. government and also the many tribes that petitioned for but 

were denied federal recognition when Congress ended federal acknowledgment of Tribal sovereignty in California and 

Oregon between 1954 and 1964.8 Ecosystems within the BioA area provide and support a broad range of ecocultural 

resources important to Tribes including foods, medicine, materials, and non material values. Tribal communities 

continue to foster longstanding customary relationships with natural resources and are impacted by land management 

of culturally significant sites and resources. 

Based on existing data, in this chapter we examine key forest benefits and highlight their social and economic values. 

We look at what’s been working well for local communities and where communities have struggled to adapt under 

current land management plans on the national forests and grasslands in the BioA area. We acknowledge limitations 

and consider what we can do to improve how we serve communities into the future. We will update information related 

to economic benefits to communities with detailed, site-specific local data during future land management planning. 

More information about the benefits that national forests and grasslands provide to local communities is in each 

BioA chapter.

7 USFWS 2011b, 2016.

8 Koenig and Stein, 2008.
page

12CHAPTER 1

Supporting Jobs 

Jobs are one of the most critical ways that national forests and grasslands support social and economic activities in 

many communities throughout the Northwest. In 2016, activities on federal lands in the NWFP area supported almost 

25,000 jobs, with spending by visitors supporting about 7,800 recreation-based jobs and activities associated with 

timber harvests supporting about 8,900 jobs, (figure 1-1).9 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

FS-BLM employment

2001

FS-BLM employment

2012

FS-BLM employment

2016

Federal harvest 2001 Federal harvest 2012 Federal harvest 2016 FS-BLM Recreation

2012

FS-BLM Recreation

2016

Direct jobs Indirect and Induced Direct Jobs Indirect Jobs

Number of Jobs

Figure 1-1—Employment supported by Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management programs 

in the NWFP area in 2001, 2012, and 2016. Forest activities support jobs in key sectors related to 

federal timber harvests, recreation, and agency employment. Direct jobs are supported by forest 

activities (e.g., timber harvesting) and indirect jobs are supported by subsequent business-tobusiness transactions that support these forest activities (e.g., spending on materials, equipment, 

and fuel for forest work). Source: Adapted from Grinspoon and others.

25,000 Jobs in 

NWFP area

8,900 

Timber-related Jobs

7,800 

Recreation-related 

Jobs

We have more information about supporting job opportunities in the NWFP area than outside the area due to decades 

of monitoring. However, we do know that in 2016, the Ochoco National Forest supported almost 800 jobs in local 

communities—mostly associated with Forest Service employment, grazing, and timber; the Modoc National Forest 

supported about 1,000 jobs—mainly in grazing and federal employment; and the Lassen National Forest contributed 

about 1,400 jobs—mostly in federal employment, timber, and recreation. 

Sustainable Recreation

Recreation activities provide enjoyment for millions of national forest and grassland visitors. Recreation improves 

physical and mental health and helps people connect with the outdoors. In the BioA area, national forests and 

grasslands offer great opportunities for outdoor recreation. As such, tourist spending is a large part of the economic 

benefits national forests and grasslands provide to communities. On the national forests and grasslands in the BioA 

area, people enjoy biking, hiking, camping, horseback riding, off-road vehicles, hunting, fishing, skiing, wildlife viewing, 

and water sports. In the NWFP area, recreation visitors spend about $613 million annually on lodging, restaurants, 

souvenirs, and other trip-related expenses that support businesses in local communities.10 

 9 Grinspoon and others in progress-Some data and information presented in this chapter are from the Northwest Forest Plan—The First 25 Years 

(1994–2018): Socioeconomic Monitoring Results report. The report is in development as of publication of the Bioregional Assessment. 10 Charnley and others, 2018.
page

13CHAPTER 

2 CHAPTER 1

10000 120000

Harvest related employment Total harvest, All ownerships

Forest Products

Forest products, logging, and wood manufacturing support many different types 

of jobs in local communities. Total employment in forest products industries in 

the NWFP area has declined in the past 25 years and, even as overall harvest in 

the area has increased slightly since 2009, there has not been a corresponding 

increase in jobs (figure 1-2).11 Timber job losses have more impact on small rural 

communities, where up to 10 percent of the community could be working in 

forest products manufacturing, than larger, urban communities. The Forest 

Service also supports jobs by hiring and training local contractors to work on forest restoration activities.

Forest products in the BioA area are a tremendous benefit for people and communities, and provides a critical resource 

for economic development in the United States. About 600 million board feet of timber was harvested each year from 

2009 through 2018 from national forests in the BioA area—enough to build about 37,000 homes. Timber also generated 

average annual revenues of about 39 million dollars for forests in the BioA area. Nontimber forest products, such as 

moss, mushrooms, cones, grasses, and firewood, provide valuable economic and cultural benefits to rural, Tribal, and 

urban households through their use, harvest, and processing.12 

Timber-related employment and timber harvest on federal, state, Tribal, and 

private land in the NWFP area.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Jobs

Million Board Feet 

Harvest-related employment in forest products industry including 

logging and primary and secondary wood manufacturings. Total Harvest, All Ownership

Figure 1-2—Harvest-related employment and timber harvest on all ownerships—federal, state, Tribal, and private—in the 

NWFP area. The decline in employment from 2006 to 2009 has not improved despite recent increases in harvest, which 

might be due to changes in industry structure and improvements in mill efficiencies. Employment data was not available 

pre-2001 or in 2005. Source: Adapted from Grinspoon and others in progress.

Average annual forest products on national forests within the 

BioA area (2009 - 2018)

600 MMBF Timber Harvested

Enough to build 37,000 Homes

$39M Revenue Generated 

 11 Grinspoon and others in progress.

12 Grinspoon and others in progress.
page

14CHAPTER 1

Water

Water, one of the most important natural resources 

we receive from our national forests and grasslands, 

provides valuable ecological benefits, supports 

terrestrial and aquatic species, and enables us to enjoy 

many types of recreation activities. Local communities 

depend on water from national forests for their 

economic growth as well as to meet their municipal, 

industrial, and agricultural needs. In fact, about 49 

percent of the water in the western United States 

comes from national forests and grasslands (figure 1-3).13 Water has an annual monetary value of more than $3.7 billion 

nationally with the highest values in Oregon, Washington, and California.14 

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Water supply from NFS land (%)

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Subregional Watershed

BioA Boundary

National Forests and Grasslands 

(Within the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

Water supply from 

NFS land (%)

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Water supply from NFS land (%)

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Subregional Watershed

BioA Boundary

National Forests and Grasslands 

(Within the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

Figure 1-3—Percent of total water supply that originates on national 

forests and grasslands within a given subregional watershed in the 

BioA area. National forests and grasslands are an important source of 

abundant high-quality water for many uses including drinking, irrigation, 

and aquatic habitat. Water from national forests and grassland provides 

much of the water for a given basin. 

Bull Run Watershed

Located 26 miles from downtown Portland in the Sandy River 

basin on the Mt. Hood National Forest, the 102-square-mile 

Bull Run watershed collects rainwater and snowmelt that flows 

to the Bull Run River and its tributaries. As the primary drinking 

water supply for Portland, water from the watershed drains into 

two reservoirs that store more than 17 billion gallons of water. 

This water serves nearly a million residents in the Portland 

metropolitan region, a quarter of Oregon’s population. 

 13 Brown and others, 2016. 14 Sedell and others, 2000.
page

15CHAPTER 

2 CHAPTER 1

Air quality

Forests contribute to improved air quality, making it safer to breathe and easier to see as a result of reduced ozone and 

less particulate matter. Clean air and good visibility contribute to a sense of wellbeing, enhancing people’s desire to 

recreate on national forests and grasslands 

and engage in spiritual and cultural activities, 

which results in positive impacts to area 

visitation and jobs in local communities. In 

contrast, smoke from wildfires and some 

prescribed fires adversely affects air quality 

and can negatively impact the health and 

quality of life for visitors and residents. There 

is an economic effect to the communities 

that are dependent on recreation when 

visitors choose to avoid smoke-filled areas.

Economic Impacts of Smoke From Fire 

The effects of smoke from fires can be wide reaching. In the summer 

of 2018, many communities in the BioA area experienced long periods 

of heavy smoke from wildfires. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival in 

Ashland canceled or moved more than 26 outdoor performances, 

resulting in an estimated loss of $2 million to the local community. 

This loss does not include any additional trickle-down impacts for 

businesses. Visits to nearby Crater Lake National Park dropped by 22 

percent and uses of other area outdoor recreation businesses declined 

as much as 45 percent. The Ashland Chamber of Commerce noted 

some members’ sales dropped 20 to 60 percent that summer.

Carbon Storage

Most forests and grasslands in the BioA area, especially those in the western part, have much higher carbon densities 

than the rest of the country (figure 1-4).15 Carbon storage, or sequestration, is a global benefit that is hard to quantify or 

put a dollar value on, but it supports ecosystems and local and worldwide communities by addressing one of the main 

causes of climate change. 

Carbon Density in Tons/Acre, 2013

27 - 42

43 - 59

60 - 79

80 - 110

111 - 168

Carbon Density in Tons/Acre, 2013

27 - 42

43 - 59

60 - 79

80 - 110

111 - 168

Carbon Density in Tons/Acre, 2013 Carbon Density in Tons/Acre, 2013

27 - 42

43 - 59

60 - 79

80 - 110

111 - 168

Figure 1-4—Carbon density on national forests and grasslands, as of 2013. Most forests and grasslands within the 

BioA area, especially those in western part of the BioA, have much higher carbon densities than the rest of the 

country. Source: USDA Forest Service 2015.

15 USDA Forest Service, 2015.
page

16CHAPTER 1

Roads and Access

Roads in the National Forest Road System provide essential access to our national forests and grasslands and are 

built and maintained primarily from timber-sale revenue. We use roads for recreation, specially authorized activities, 

Forest Service administrative activities, and for traditional and Tribal harvesting of forest products. Local communities 

depend on maintained forest roads for many of their daily activities. Roads and trails also provide key access for fire 

suppression and search-and-rescue operations. After 30 years of declining timber sale volumes and revenue, our ability 

to maintain the road system and its benefits to communities is challenged.

Special Use Services & Energy Infrastructure

The Forest Service receives numerous individual and business applications to use national forests and grasslands. 

These special uses provide many essential benefits to our nation, including water delivery, agriculture, outfitting and 

guiding, recreation, telecommunications, research, photography and video productions, and road and utility rights of 

way. The special use activities that generate the most revenue on national forests and grasslands in the BioA area are 

recreational residences, winter recreation resorts, powerlines, telecommunications, outfitting and guide services, and 

marinas. Energy infrastructure, such as transmission and powerlines on national forests and grasslands, contributes 

to national energy security, improves quality of life, and feeds power to communities. National forests and grasslands 

in the BioA area support more than 1,700 miles of energy transmission lines that contribute to local communities and 

regional needs. Hydropower provides important electricity generation capability to meet the needs of people across 

the region. In 2018, special uses in the BioA area generated about $19 million, and this annual amount has been growing 

for the past decade.

Livestock Grazing

Grazing provides important benefits and supports both 

employment and the ranching culture in local communities, 

particularly on the eastern forests and grasslands of the 

BioA area (Modoc, Ochoco and Fremont-Winema National 

Forests and Crooked River National Grassland). Ranchers 

seasonally graze on national forests and grasslands because 

the land usually provides high-quality forage, good access, 

and cooler summer temperatures at higher elevations. 

However, land managers are required and challenged to 

provide long-term sustainable grazing, while maintaining 

habitat for wildlife and healthy streams in the face of 

changing climatic conditions and the related increase in the 

frequency, intensity, and scale of wildfires.
page

17CHAPTER 

2 CHAPTER 1

Unique Forest Communities 

Every forest community is different. Social and economic conditions 

in some communities are more connected to forest activities than 

in others. For example, Tribes maintain an interdependent 

relationship with the national forests whereby Tribal practices 

nurture ecological systems, and those systems nurture and 

sustain cultural identity and social continuity. Tribes hold deep 

connections to ancestral lands managed by the Forest Service 

and rely on effective forest management of Tribal resources 

to maintain those connections. The Forest Service has unique 

legal responsibilities to each American Indian Tribal government 

through treaties, where Tribes have reserved rights for their 

Tribal members both on and off reservation lands. The ability 

of all Tribes to obtain ecocultural resources from public lands 

in the desired quality and quantity can be reduced by both 

social and biophysical factors. While some Tribes have treaties, 

other Tribes have different rights and cultural differences, 

making each Tribe and its relationship with Forest Service land 

management unique. 

Of those non-Tribal communities with close ties to national 

forests and grasslands, some have been able to adapt to land 

management changes. For example, some are “amenity 

communities” that have taken advantage of natural forest 

settings to benefit from an increase in the number of 

residents and visitors. In addition, some communities have 

been able to successfully develop 

economic opportunities outside 

of the timber sector by pursuing 

energy, agricultural, and tourism 

possibilities. In contrast, 

other communities have faced 

significant challenges as a result 

of land management changes. 

The communities that relied 

on a federal supply of timber 

to support their workforce and 

infrastructure (figure 1-5) are 

more likely to have been directly 

affected by reductions in federal 

harvests. These communities 

might also be aging and young 

people are moving away. When part 

of the workforce retires without 

being replaced by younger people, 

jobs remain unfilled and businesses 

leave the community, which 

leads to more people leaving and 

perpetuates a cycle of social and 

economic loss. Rural communities 

that depend on federal timber 

face these types of challenges 

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

C

N E V A D A

A

L

I

F

O

R

N

I

A

DEL NORTE

COWLITZ

SAN JUAN

KLAMATH

DESCHUTES

SKAMANIA

HOOD RIVER

CROOK

BENTON

CURRY

JACKSON

PACIFIC

COLUMBIA

MASON

NAPA YOLO

KITSAP

PIERCE

LASSEN

YAKIMA

OKANOGAN

FRANKLIN

LINCOLN

COLUSA

TEHAMA

CLARK

POLK

LEWIS

WASCO

KLICKITAT

KITTITAS

HUMBOLDT

JOSEPHINE

LANE

WAHKIAKUM

YAMHILL

GRAYS HARBOR

LAKE

SHASTA

CLACKAMAS

WALLA WALLA

MENDOCINO

TRINITY

MARION

ISLAND

SHERMAN

GRANT

SONOMA

WASHINGTON

CLALLAM

THURSTON

GLENN

SUTTER

SKAGIT

WHATCOM

MODOC

ADAMS

SISKIYOU

COOS DOUGLAS

LINN

CLATSOP

TILLAMOOK

JEFFERSON

MARIN

MULTNOMAH

KING

SNOHOMISH

CHELAN

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Not linked

Weak

Moderate

Strong

Very Strong

Extremely Strong

BioA Boundary

NWFP Boundary

Strength of County 

Tie to Federal Forest 

Activities in 1990

throughout the BioA area. 

Figure 1-5—Strength of county economic and social ties to federal forest activities in 

1990. 1990 is a mid-point between a period of very high harvest activity, as measured 

by total volume on federal forests in the 1980s, and the adoption of the NWFP in 

1994. Counties with stronger links just before the NWFP era might have had a greater 

likelihood of experiencing challenging economic conditions related to management 

changes, such as reduced staffing and timber harvest levels, introduced by the plan. 

Counties in southern Oregon and northern California were more likely to be strongly 

linked to federal forest land management during this time than counties in other areas 

of the NWFP region. Individual communities might not have had the same strength of 

links to federal forest lands management in 1990 as did the county in which they are 

located, though the proportion of communities within a county that were strongly linked 

to federal forest lands management is probably higher in strongly linked counties. Some 

counties to the east and south edges of the BioA area are not represented as they 

were not part of the NWFP socioeconomic monitoring. Source: Adapted from Adams in 

progress.
page

18

Communities across the BioA area also experienced shifts in demography. Some communities saw an increase in 

minority populations, while others saw an increase in low-income residents. Demographic shifts bring new social 

challenges that interact with land management decisions. The Executive Order on Environmental Justice and the Forest 

Service’s 2012 planning rule direct land managers to pay attention to how policy changes or program implementation 

affect vulnerable populations, such as minority, low income, elderly, and disabled populations, and to consider the 

unique outreach and communication needs of these populations.

The following community stories are descriptive and show differing experiences in national forest communities in the 

BioA area. These communities were all historically linked to federal forests and had to adapt to changes introduced 

by the NWFP. The stories have been adapted from the comprehensive formal analysis of communities that will be 

presented in the forthcoming 25-year monitoring report.16

Happy Camp, California

Happy Camp is a small mountain community surrounded by northern California’s Klamath National Forest. The town’s 

timber economy, based almost exclusively on national forest harvests, boomed between the 1950s and 1980s, after which 

national forest harvests were sharply curtailed. The last sawmill in the area shut down in 1994. Happy Camp and the 

surrounding area lost 22 percent of their population during the 1990s. This dramatic change created a void in the community 

as younger working-class families left to pursue other opportunities. A way of life—working in the woods—that had defined 

the community was lost and has not returned. Today, the 

town is home to the Klamath-Siskiyou Art Center; Karuk 

Tribe administrative offices, which provide important 

services to the community; and the USDA Forest Service’s 

Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District offices, which have 

remained open but at lower staffing levels. The community 

has worked with the Forest Service to expand recreation 

visitation in the two wilderness areas adjacent to the 

community and on the Klamath River, which offers excellent 

opportunities for rafting and fishing. The community 

persists, but its population, economy, and social structure 

have changed dramatically during the past 30 years.

Leavenworth, Washington

Leavenworth is a small mountain town surrounded by the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in central Washington. 

Nearly 6,000 people lived in Leavenworth by 1920, and the town supported a large sawmill. But the timber boom ended 

when the railroad was rerouted in 1926, and soon afterward the mill closed. Although many locals continued in the timber 

industry at nearby mills or at the Leavenworth Ranger District, the town population steadily declined until the 1960s. In 1963, 

community leaders decided to create a Bavarian-themed tourist town to boost the economy. Leavenworth’s economy steadily 

improved during the latter 20th century. Tourism continued to 

grow as mountain biking, rock climbing, and rafting on the 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest became popular. In 

addition, the forest’s beautiful scenery and amenities attracted 

new permanent and part-time residents that spurred burgeoning 

real estate and vacation rental markets. Although Leavenworth is 

now prosperous, neither this community nor nearby communities 

in the Wenatchee Valley are associated with timber-sector 

work anymore, a fact that some residents lament. The lack of 

infrastructure in the area makes needed restoration work on the 

national forest challenging.

16 Coughlan and others in progress.

CHAPTER 1
page

19CHAPTER 

2 CHAPTER 1

Mill City, Oregon

Mill City is at the mouth of the North Santiam Canyon 30 miles east of the city of Salem. Between the late 1950s and the 

late 1980s, Mill City thrived. High-wage jobs with the town’s lumber mills and the Forest Service sustained a variety of 

local businesses, a community theatre, and a bowling alley. Unlike Happy Camp and Leavenworth, the timber industry did 

not disappear from Mill City. At least one wood products mill has operated in the North Santiam Canyon area throughout 

the NWFP era. A few small outdoor recreation businesses are in operation, and the area has attracted some retirees. Yet 

the town still experienced significant social and economic change 

starting in the 1990s. Forest Service positions funded by timber 

were eliminated, many employees and their families left town, and 

many local logging contractors either folded or moved away.

Houses were left vacant and the number of absentee landlords 

grew. School enrollment declined substantially, reflecting far fewer 

families with children in the community. Mill City’s population did 

not decline sharply, unlike many other rural forest towns in the 

Northwest. In 2017, it had roughly the same number of residents 

as in 1990, but it is a much different community with fewer services 

and jobs.

Land Management Plans Help Sustain Community Benefits 

Updates to land management plan direction, while unable to resolve all issues, can help to improve social and economic 

sustainability and better reflect the needs of local communities throughout the BioA area, especially those in hardhit rural communities across southern Oregon and northern California. While the Forest Service strives to balance 

the social, economic, and ecological needs of communities and landscapes, there are instances where one resource 

objective might require more emphasis than others. When updating land management plans, the Forest Service 

collaborates with Tribes, states, counties, and communities to develop goals and discover potential management 

approaches that seek the right emphasis on community and ecosystem objectives. For example, plan direction can 

help increase forest products generated from national forests, which can increase timber available and increase the 

workforce needed to maintain a stable pace and scale of restoration. In this way, land management direction can, to 

the extent possible, emphasize the value of social and 

economic benefits of national forests and grasslands to 

local communities. 

We can help ensure effective stewardship of 

sustainable, healthy, and fire resilient national forest 

and grassland landscapes as well as recreation 

opportunities by developing direction that is 

compatible with Tribal, state, and local land and action 

management plans. Additionally, the Forest Service 

is committed to sharing the stewardship of federal 

lands with Tribal, state, and local partners. By 

setting priorities together, we can better focus our land 

management efforts across boundaries. 

Local Businesses and the Forest Service 

Work Together

Businesses and partners in the communities around our 

national forests and those across the region help us do 

important work on our forests and grasslands. Local 

businesses often purchase timber sales and accomplish 

restoration work. And, businesses and partners 

located within the region might have needed unique 

skills and capacities. Ultimately, the amount of local 

economic activity that results from land management 

activity on our national forests and grasslands is 

strongly influenced by who is doing the work and if 

harvested wood is locally processed. Developing a 

shared understanding and common expectations with 

our partners and stakeholders about the link between 

land management and economic well-being is vital. 

It’s also important to recognize the limits that land 

management activities have on local communities.
page

20CHAPTER 1

Conclusion

In this chapter, we recognized the significant values that national forests and grasslands deliver to all people, especially 

to those in communities that directly depend on economic benefits from these lands. Moving forward, we know that 

balancing complex ecological needs with the growing social and economic needs of communities within the BioA area 

will take a commitment to ongoing communication, collaboration, and coordination to develop solutions that address 

these challenges. 
page

21CHAPTER 

2

Chapter 2

Management Recommendations

Chapter 2 presents 10 key recommendations for improving land management plans to support communities and 

ecosystems in the BioA area. The recommendations provide a focused snapshot of the most urgent or widespread 

community needs and ecological issues. We recognize that the social, economic, and ecological challenges across 

this landscape are complex and will likely require solutions that go beyond what can be achieved by modernizing land 

management plans. However, these recommendations offer a step forward by identifying what can be influenced by 

land management planning on national forests and grassland in the BioA area. 

The integrated recommendations in this chapter are based on the opportunities, challenges, and geographic 

considerations that you’ll read about in chapters 3 through 5, as well as the contributions to communities discussed in 

chapter 1. This chapter weaves together key findings, while drawing out connections to people and their communities 

to present a cohesive, integrated set of recommendations for Forest Service land management planning across the 

BioA area. The recommendations intentionally don’t address the details of exactly how they would be incorporated 

and implemented into land management plans. We’ll engage with our publics and stakeholders as we move along in 

the planning process and then accomplish that greater level of planning detail. These recommendations don’t involve 

all issues that might be addressed in future planning. Additional findings and recommendations that did not rise to a 

level of urgency or those that did not affect multiple national forests and grasslands will be considered when individual 

national forests and grasslands in the BioA area conduct their assessments.

Throughout the rest of this assessment, you’ll notice that findings are organized under the following five broad 

categories. These categories represent the key social, economic, and ecological challenges facing our existing 

land management plans and illustrate linkages and opportunities for integration across the recommendations. We 

developed the categories after assessing current conditions and trends using the best available science and monitoring 

and implementation results as well as what we heard during the public listening sessions held in 2015 and the Forest 

Service meetings in 2019. 

Ecological Integrity. Maintain and enhance the sustainability of our terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems so they continue to deliver important benefits. 

Fire and Fuels. Manage fire and fuels for increased compatibility with natural processes, while 

continuing to prioritize human health and safety. 

Sustainable Timber. Provide sustainable timber and forest products to local communities, while 

contributing to ecological restoration needs. 

Habitat Management. Address habitat management to promote the recovery of federally listed 

species and the persistence of other species at risk.

Sustainable Recreation. Provide recreation opportunities that are sustainable considering 

increasing demand and the changing nature of recreation patterns.
page

22

CHAPTER

2

Ecological Integrity

RECOMMENDATION 1—MAINTAIN AND RESTORE ECOSYSTEM 

CHARACTERISTICS AND PROCESSES BY WORKING TOWARD DESIRED 

CONDITIONS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE DIVERSE LANDSCAPES 

ACROSS THE BIOA AREA.

For the past few decades, conditions associated with invasive species, wildfire, and climate change have affected 

the sustainability of our national forests and grasslands in the BioA area, and their ability to provide the numerous 

benefits described in chapter 1.17 The water we drink, the air we breathe, the food we gather and eat, and the 

places where we recreate and enjoy spiritual renewal, depend on the sustainability and integrity of our national 

forests and grasslands. 

The ability of ecosystems to persist in the face of stress or pressure and continue providing benefits into the future 

depends on their ecological integrity (figure 2-1). However, ecological integrity is compromised across much of the 

BioA area (chapter 4, Ecological Integrity). We need to restore ecosystem processes, such as fire, and characteristics, 

such as the distribution and extent of major vegetation types, tree species diversity, forest structure, stream 

connectivity, density and size of dead wood, water quality and quantity, and habitat connectivity. Ecosystems have 

integrity when these characteristics are resilient to fire and climate change and function at multiple scales. Ecosystem State

Disturbance (e.g. fire, 

insect, disease)

stable

resistant

resilient

unstable

new steady state

Figure 2-1—When a disturbance occurs, even a natural one like fire, drought, insects, or disease, an ecosystem responds in 

different ways. The ecosystem can be resistant (very little change occurs, and the system stabilizes quickly), resilient (more change 

occurs but the ecosystem stabilizes eventually), or unstable (ecosystem changes completely). One example of this is a frequentfire dependent forest historically dominated by ponderosa pine that now has dense stands of white fir or grand fir. The forest 

could experience a low-severity ground fire and change very little (resistant), or it could experience a mixed-severity fire and take 

years to recover, but eventually return to a conditions resembling those before the fire. Finally, a large high-severity fire could 

burn a large area of forest to the ground with the ecosystem unable to regenerate ponderosa pine, instead transitioning to a firdominated forest or a grass or shrubland ecosystem (unstable). This figure does not incorporate climate change, changes in land 

use, or social factors. Adapted from Franklin and others 2018.

17 Spies and others, 2018; Long and others, 2014; Dumroese and others, 2018.
page

23CHAPTER 

2

One of the factors limiting our ability to maintain and restore ecological integrity is existing plan direction that is not 

always compatible with the diversity of ecosystems across the BioA area (figure 2-2) (chapter 4, Ecological Integrity 

and Habitat Management). For example, current direction related to tree age and size in the NWFP and the Eastside 

Screens18, which promote old-growth forests, might be appropriate in 

some instances but can create barriers to implementing appropriate 

management when applied using a one size fits all approach. While 

existing plans have been effective at stemming the loss of dense, 

multi-layered old-growth habitat and providing habitat connectivity 

(chapter 3, Ecological Integrity and Habitat Management), it has been 

at the cost of ecological integrity in some areas.19 

“The science of the NWFP did not 

adequately deal with substantially 

different ecology of forests and 

landscapes of the dry forest zone, which 

comprises almost half of the NWFP area.” 

Spies and others 2018

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

0 mi 50 100 E 0 10050km

Vegetation zones (percentage of forest area)

Western Hemlock (25)

White Fir - Grand Fir (13)

Douglas-Fir (13)

Ponderosa Pine (9)

Silver Fir (7)

Mountain Hemlock (4)

Sitka Spruce (4)

Tanoak (4)

Hardwoods (4)

Pinyon-Juniper-Cypress (4)

Redwood (3)

Subalpine Fir - Engelmann Spruce (2)

Jeffrey Pine (2)

Western Red Cedar (1)

Foothill Pine -Coulter Pine (1)

California Red Fir -Shasta Red Fir (<1) 

Port Orford Cedar (<1)

Lodgepole Pine (<1)

Giant Sequoia (<1)

Nonforested area*

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

*Nonforested area includes vegetation zones

'Developed', 'Grasslands - Meadows',

'Ice and Snowfields', 'Parklands', 'Rock',

'Shrublands', and 'Water'

Vegetation zones

(percentage of forest area)

Figure 2-2—There are the 

broad and diverse vegetation 

zones within the BioA area. 

The zones are named for 

the main tree species and 

indicate the potential of the 

land to support ecosystems 

and produce resources. The 

categorization is a framework 

for the intersection of climatic 

and productivity gradients 

across the landscape, including 

disturbance—notably fire.

 18 USDA Forest Service, 1995.

19 Spies and others, 2018a.
page

24

CHAPTER

2

Some incompatibility between plan direction and our goals for achieving ecologically resilient landscapes is found 

across the BioA area but is particularly acute in the frequent-fire dependent ecosystems of the Klamath Mountains, 

Southern Coast Range (California) and on the eastern side of the Cascade Mountains (chapter 5, Ecological Integrity 

and Fire and Fuels). An extensive build-up of flammable vegetation, increasingly dense forests, and changes in tree 

type and patterns all contribute to uncharacteristic effects from wildfire and insects and disease that can impact local 

communities as well as important habitat and other resources. 

Ecosystem-specific desired conditions that support the natural capabilities of the land will better ensure that we are 

managing for ecological integrity and the long-term sustainability of habitats, which includes incorporating the natural 

role that fire, insects, disease, and other processes play. Desired conditions should incorporate the best available 

scientific information for example, Pacific Southwest Research Station’s report, An Ecosystem Management Strategy for 

Sierran Mixed-conifer Forests20 about the amount, type, size, and arrangement of vegetation in forested and non-forested 

landscapes.

Desired conditions that address the diversity of ecosystems across the BioA area and promote the resilience of those 

ecosystems will be a strong foundation for land management plan direction that will guide us toward ecologically 

sustainable landscapes. We can then build other plan direction to support ecological integrity as well as benefits like 

clean air and water, recreation, forest products, carbon storage, and cultural connections. 

A resilient ecosystem maintains key functions and processes in the face of stress or pressure, which is a key component 

of ecological integrity. Less resilient ecosystems are slower or less likely to recover from disturbances. Resilient 

ecosystems maintain important processes, like fire, which are sources of renewal and function across multiple scales. 

One method to estimate if a landscape is resilient to disturbance is by comparing existing forest structure, species 

composition, and landscape patterns to reference conditions, such as a natural range of variation. Significant 

differences indicate a loss of resiliency. Understanding reference conditions provides critical insight to help ensure 

that management practices will lead to increased resiliency and flow of resources. For example, knowing reference 

conditions could provide percentages for how much old, mid-aged, young, and early-seral forest would be on the 

landscape if that landscape were resilient to natural stressors, like fire. 

However, ecological resilience is not always a desired condition. In fact, ecological resilience might directly conflict 

with desired conditions. For example, ecologically resilient forests might host wildfire near homes and important 

infrastructure like telecommunication sites or powerlines. These are cases when a natural process that is part of 

maintaining ecological integrity is not desired. We can use concepts like ecological integrity and resilience as anchors 

for management and desired conditions, but they have limitations in the context of communities, changes in climate, 

and land use.

20 North and others, 2009.

Resilient Ecosystems and Ecological Integrity
page

25CHAPTER 

2

RECOMMENDATION 2—ADDRESS THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF ECOSYSTEMS 

TO BETTER RESPOND TO FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTIES.

The dynamic nature of ecosystems means that goals for reserves should likely include a range of successional stages 

and, in some cases, adjustments to reserve boundaries. For example, the needs of some species associated with old 

forests that experience dynamic disturbance events are not being met by the static boundaries of late-successional 

reserves.21 Managing large reserves as dynamic mosaics of vegetation conditions that meet the needs of various wildlife 

species as well as goals for resilience to climate change and fire might better align with current goals. 

Ecosystems naturally change across time; we need plan direction that is tied 

to the characteristics that define these ecosystems. Such land management 

direction is more adaptable to the dynamic systems we steward. In addition, 

our growing knowledge about how to enhance and retain old-growth forest 

habitats tells us that land management plans must adapt to changing desired 

forest characteristics like tree age and size. Incorporating climate change 

refugia into reserve networks and aligning late-successional reserves with 

late-seral habitat can proactively address habitat management given future 

uncertainties (figure 2-3).

“In recent years, the frequency and 

severity of pest and wildfire events 

are unlike what we have experienced 

in the past, forcing us to reexamine 

our land and fire management 

policies and practices.”

California’s Forest and Rangelands: 

2017 Assessment

Deep snow drifts provide 

insulation to the surface 

and provide water later in Valleys that harbor cold air pools and the season.

inversions can decouple local climate 

conditions from regional circulation patterns.

North-facing slopes and aspects 

result in shaded areas that buffer 

solar heating, particularly during 

the low solar angles of winter 

and early spring

Canopy cover can 

buffer local temperature 

maximimums and minimums 

throughout the year

Areas near or in large deep 

lakes or oceans will warm 

more slowly due to the high 

heat capacity of water.

Cold ground water inputs produce local cold-water 

refuges in which stream temperature is 

decoupled from air temerature.

Figure 2-3—Climate change refugia principles and examples of refugia that might experience reduced rates of impact from 

climate change. Source: Morelli and others. (2016). After Spies and others. 2018.

21 Marcot and others, 2018.

Topographically complex terrain 

creates varied microclimates and 

increases the likelihood that current 

climates will continue to exist nearby.
page

26

CHAPTER

2

Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies are not directly addressed under existing land management plans 

and maintaining and restoring natural processes is often difficult. A changing climate is expected to impact ecosystems, 

biodiversity, and the delivery of benefits to people.22 As we work to modernize the plans, we have an opportunity to 

include direction23 (chapter 3, Ecological Integrity) that enables us to meet a changing climate with ecologically resilient 

landscapes. Within the BioA area, the effects of climate change are anticipated to be the greatest in northern California, 

southern Oregon, the eastern Cascades, and high-elevation zones (chapter 5, Ecological Integrity). 

While our knowledge about national forests and grasslands and the communities that we serve has grown, large 

uncertainties remain.24 By improving how we integrate future uncertainty into our land management planning 

direction, we will be better positioned to manage ecosystems in the face 

of anticipated change. Risk management, adaptive management, and 

monitoring are tools we can use to address complex social and ecological 

issues given an uncertain future.25 Adaptive management areas were 

designated in the NWFP but are rarely used, so goals associated with 

learning from adaptive management were not met. It will be important 

to incorporate and implement adaptive management processes, risk 

management, and monitoring into future land management plan direction.

Testing and evaluating new, highly integrated conservation strategies could help us deal with uncertainties and 

knowledge gaps related to fire, climate change, invasive species, tradeoffs between ecosystem and species goals, and 

between ecological and social components.26 Incorporating contemporary management concepts and tools could help 

us manage ecosystems to move toward resilient states and reduce risks associated with uncertainty. Creating plan 

scenarios or processes that are triggered under various circumstances could also help. Using a variety of management 

approaches and courses of action will likely be the best way to minimize risk and enable future learning.27

“The response of forest and range 

ecosystems to a changing climate 

is one of the greatest challenges 

confronting California”

California’s Forest and Rangelands: 

2017 Assessment

22 Reilly and others, 2018. 23 Reilly and others, 2018.

24 Spies and others, 2018b. 

25 Spies and others, 2018b. 

26 Spies and others, 2018b.

27 Reilly and others, 2018. 
page

27CHAPTER 

2

RECOMMENDATION 3—UPDATE AND INTEGRATE EXISTING AQUATIC 

DIRECTION FROM MULTIPLE AQUATIC STRATEGIES.

Healthy, functioning watersheds and the aquatic and riparian ecosystems within them are critical to providing key 

benefits to people and ecosystems, as described in chapter 1. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is working well, is 

functionally sound, and provides a solid foundation, with opportunity for improvements, to move into future land 

management planning efforts28 (chapter 3, Ecological Integrity). National forests and grasslands in the BioA area, 

including those outside of the NWFP area, also have well-functioning aquatic direction that addresses the need to 

provide beneficial habitat and water quality. 

Designation of riparian management areas—a cornerstone to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, Sierra Nevada 

Framework Aquatic Management Strategy, and PACFISH and INFISH strategies—has resulted in a trend toward 

watershed improvement across the BioA area. Although climate change projections suggest a trend of warmer 

stream temperatures, which cause water to hold less oxygen, 20 years of monitoring data are showing cooler stream 

temperatures, which indicates improving stream conditions within the NWFP area.29 Cooler stream temperatures might 

be a result of increasing tree cover along streams, which helps to buffer stream temperatures against climate change. 

At the same time, managing aquatic and riparian ecosystems in the BioA area under the above strategies has created 

multiple process and analysis requirements that have increased Forest Service planning costs, while agency budgets 

and workforce have declined (chapter 4, Habitat Management). For example, in areas where both PACFISH and the 

NWFP apply, the consultation, reporting, and analysis requirements of both 

must be met. By developing one consolidated strategy for managing aquatic 

and riparian systems across the BioA area, we can increase efficiencies while 

retaining the effective qualities of the current strategies. 

Existing strategies have been successful at addressing aquatic and riparian 

conservation issues at the appropriate scale, as well as taking an ecological 

approach to managing habitat to support species viability. It will be 

important to bring these successful approaches forward and to consider how 

complementary land allocations—for example, riparian reserves, late-successional reserves, and congressionallydesignated areas—work together to protect and restore aquatic habitat and watersheds. 

Land management planning direction that considers natural 

processes and future uncertainties is vital for aquatic and 

riparian systems. For example, promoting fire regimes that 

result in fewer large, uncharacteristic wildfires can help maintain 

the resiliency of aquatic systems.30 Modernizing the land 

management plans in the BioA area should also address impaired 

waters and aquatic invasive species, which have emerged as a 

threat and are expected to increase as a result of factors such as 

climate change and human activities.31

Riparian areas are generally managed passively using natural 

process and minimal intervention. However, by clearly defining 

the desired conditions, we can identify where active management, such as harvesting, planting vegetation, using fire, 

and other activities,32 is needed. Sometimes, for example, when dealing with non-native species, passive management 

might even hinder the restoration of aquatic and riparian ecosystems.33 

By bringing forward the successful components of existing strategies and plan direction, improving direction based on 

what we have learned, and developing one consolidated strategy across the BioA, we can ensure effective and efficient 

management of watersheds, and their aquatic and riparian ecosystems. 

Active Management—direct 

interventions to achieve desired 

outcomes, which may include 

har vesting and planting of 

vegetation and the intentional use 

of fire, among other activities.

Spies and others 2018

28 Reilly and others, 2018. 29 Miller and others, 2017. 

30 Hunsaker and others, 2014.

31 Reeves and others, 2018.

32 Spies and others, 2018.

33 Reeves and others, 2018.
page

28

CHAPTER

2

RECOMMENDATION 4—REDUCE THE INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF EXOTIC 

PLANT, ANIMAL, AND OTHER INVASIVE SPECIES.

The effects of invasive species are one of the primary concerns associated with maintaining ecological integrity across 

the BioA area (chapter 4, Ecological Integrity). Our understanding of the ecological and economic impacts of invasive 

species has greatly increased during the past few decades. Invasive species can have widespread social, economic, 

and ecological impacts, including negative impacts to native species, permanent ecological changes, reductions in 

water quality, altered fire regimes, degradation of forage quality, adverse effects on human health and well-being, and 

economic losses.34 

Existing land management plans are quite limited in addressing potential impacts of invasive species; they focus 

primarily on invasive plants. However, the term “invasive species” includes terrestrial and aquatic insects, animals, 

and pathogens that have moved into habitats or areas where they previously did not exist. An example of an invasive 

species is the barred owl, which has invaded the range of the northern spotted owl and has become one of the major 

factors affecting the recovery of spotted owls (chapter 4, Habitat Management). Direct management of most animals, 

including the barred owl, is outside the authority of the Forest Service. However, land management plans should 

address the need to manage habitats to reduce opportunity for competition between native and invasive species and 

prevent the introduction of invasive species. 

Land management plans in the BioA area should address the need for proactive invasive species management by 

integrating invasive species ecology and management direction with overarching desired conditions related to forest 

ecology. In addition, plans need to include approaches for increasing invasive species prevention and control efforts, 

such as early detection and rapid response, frequent inventories, and increased interagency coordination. Because 

invasive species are a landscape-level issue that crosses administrative boundaries, creating consistency in plan 

direction across the BioA area would improve efficiency and effectiveness of treatment strategies by making it easier to 

coordinate and share resources within the Forest Service. Managing and preventing invasive species is not something 

that the Forest Service can do on its own. Having consistent invasive species management direction in the BioA 

area promotes shared stewardship and enhances the ability to work with other agencies and private landowners 

to manage invasive species across multiple jurisdictions. 

Barred Owl

Spotted Lanternfly

Zebra Mussel

 34 Long and others, 2014.
page

29CHAPTER 

2

Fire and Fuels Management

RECOMMENDATION 5—PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY AND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY IN 

FORESTED AREAS NEAR COMMUNITIES AT RISK FROM WILDFIRES.

The population of the region continues to grow, and people 

are increasingly choosing to live within and adjacent to 

national forests and grasslands. During the past few decades 

communities have experienced some of the largest and most 

impactful fire seasons in recent memory. As the amount of 

wildland-urban interface has increased, so has the risk of 

wildfire impacts to people and communities (figure 4-5). 

Wildfire can have significant effects on public health and 

safety and community economics by impacting air and 

water quality, the supply of power, recreation opportunities, 

and travel and transportation. Although fire plays a key 

ecological role in national forests and grasslands, wildfire 

often occurs in places and at times that are not desired.

The cost of suppressing increasingly complex wildfires continues to climb, consuming valuable time and resources 

that could otherwise be used to work toward land management objectives for the benefit of local communities and 

the public. Of the national forests within the BioA area, 10 are in the top 40 that have the highest wildfire risk across 

the country,35 and eight are in the top 25 that have the highest wildfire suppression costs.36 Emphasizing strategic risk 

management, especially in places on the landscape where it is most needed and effective, might help alleviate some of 

the imbalance. 

Some current land management plan direction emphasizes ecological and 

wildlife habitat objectives in places where they are incompatible with effective 

wildfire-risk mitigation (chapter 4, Fire and Fuels Management). Although 

most ecological and wildlife habitat objectives are compatible with wildfire 

risk mitigation, incompatibilities that do exist hinder effective hazardous fuels 

reduction in certain circumstances, particularly in portions of some designated 

late-successional reserves. Plan direction for late-successional reserves includes 

provisions for risk reduction activities; however, the risk is narrowly defined as risk of loss for late-successional habitats. 

The definition of risk needs to include risks posed to communities in addition to ecosystem integrity. 

Land management plans need to better address strategic wildfire 

-risk mitigation in and around communities and in the wildlandurban interface. We need to better align fuels and fire management 

objectives with land management allocations, including options for 

active management. This also includes ensuring land use allocations 

support management activities to reduce the risk around critical 

infrastructure, such as powerlines and telecommunication sites. 

Having a risk-based framework in our land management plan 

direction would allow for management of key ecological and wildlife 

characteristics, while at the same time emphasizing critical risk 

mitigation in the places and at the times where it is most needed. 

A key example of a management challenge is the apparent conflict between the objectives of addressing fire risk and 

maintaining habitat for northern spotted owl. Wildfire-risk assessments provide a quantitative approach to identifying 

and prioritizing treatments around communities and infrastructure, to restoring focus areas on the landscape, and to 

providing appropriate response to wildfires (chapter 5, Fire and Fuels Management). 

“Fire risk’ comprises the 

likelihood of a wildfire, its 

intensity, and its positive or 

negative effects.” 

– Toward Shared Stewardship: 

Across Landscapes (2018)

“To better manage fire risk, we will need 

to step up the use of prescribed fire 

and managed wildfire in concert with 

mechanical treatments and timber sales. 

Working with partners and stakeholders, 

we can find opportunities in fire-adapted 

forests to reintroduce the right kind of fire 

at the right times in the right places.” 

– Toward Shared Stewardship: 

Across Landscapes (2018)

35 Dillon and others, 2015; Dillon, 2017; Dillon In Press.

36 Thompson and others, 2015.
page

30

CHAPTER

2

RECOMMENDATION 6—RECOGNIZE THAT FIRE IS A NATURAL PROCESS AND PLAYS 

AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN REDUCING THE RISK OF UNCHARACTERISTIC FIRE AND 

IN PROMOTING ECOSYSTEM HEALTH.

Dating back nearly a century, the Forest Service has suppressed most wildfires, fearing resource damage and impacts to 

private property and communities. During the past few decades, we better understand the vital ecological importance 

of natural disturbance in many of the ecosystems in the BioA area.37 Today, we know that fire plays a particularly critical 

role in shaping the ecology of the forest, shrubland, and grassland ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest and 

northern California.38

To restore ecological balance, as well as to promote community safety 

and resiliency and ecological integrity, it is essential that we restore 

natural fire into ecosystems in the BioA area. In practice, this might 

require different approaches based on and tailored to conditions 

within the diverse ecosystems of the broad BioA area. Existing land 

management plans focus on wildfire suppression and don’t fully 

acknowledge the important ecological role of fire in fire-adapted 

ecosystems, nor do they adequately promote the use of unplanned 

ignitions to meet ecological and resource objectives (chapter 4, Fire and Fuels Management). Across the BioA area, 

and especially in frequent-fire dependent systems, the amount of “good” fire today is only a small fraction of what 

historically drove these ecosystems (figure 2-4). 

Figure 2-4—Primary fire ecology groups of the 

“To safely and effectively extinguish fire, 

when needed; use fire where allowable; 

manage our natural resources; and as a 

Nation, live with wildland fire.” 

National Cohesive 

Wildland Fire Management Strategy Vision

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Fire Ecology Groups

Frequent-Fire Dependent

Fire Diverse (mixed severity)

Fire Infrequent

Other

BioA Boundary

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

• Ecosystems that experience fire frequently are

frequent-fire dependent. 

• Ecosystems that sometimes experience fire are

fire diverse (mixed-severity). 

• Ecosystems that historically haven’t often 

experienced fire are fire infrequent. 

For full definitions, see Chapter 4, 

Fire and Fuels Management.

Fire Ecology Groups

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N

I A

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Fire Ecology Groups

Frequent-Fire Dependent

Fire Diverse (mixed severity)

Fire Infrequent

Other

BioA Boundary

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA. There is no national forest or grassland 

that is only one fire ecology group. 

 37 Spies and others, 2018.

38 Long and others, 2014; Dumroese and others, 2018.
page

31CHAPTER 

2

We acknowledge that fire can pose a significant risk to communities, recreational opportunities, municipal watersheds, 

important wildlife habitat, private timber lands, and other social values. However, not all fire is bad, and fire is often 

essential to the long-term function, stability and resilience of ecosystems. These concepts are reflected in the 2014 

National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, which is the result of a collaborative effort among federal, 

state, local, governments, Tribes, partners, and stakeholders. The strategy, which aims to comprehensively address 

wildland fire management across all lands in the United States, is not reflected in existing land management plans in 

the BioA area.

It is not practical to use only mechanical harvest and prescribed fire 

to meet landscape resource objectives because of the vast geographic 

scope of the challenge.39 Therefore, to help affect landscape-level 

change and promote broad-scale ecological sustainability, integrity, 

and resilience, we need to leverage fire, one of nature’s own tools, to 

help restore ecosystems.40 There are opportunities in our frequent-fire 

dependent systems to manage wildfires to reduce fuels and improve 

forest conditions when the fires are safe for firefighters and the public 

and do not threaten communities or structures. We recognize that conflict can exist between the use of fire and other 

objectives, like timber production, which we will need address in upcoming planning efforts.

We know that many landscapes that need restoration are so departed from 

resilient conditions that fires might become uncharacteristically large and of 

high severity so that even the most fire-resistant trees cannot survive.41 Such 

fires could permanently alter forest types or damage ecosystem integrity. To 

support the natural role of fire in restoring our landscapes, we must ensure 

that land management plan direction supports the strategic placement of 

mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. Such treatments will be most 

successful if they are coordinated and appropriately scaled across all land 

ownerships including Tribal, state, other public, and private lands.

While the problems and solutions associated 

with fire vary across the BioA area, the most 

urgent need to restore natural disturbance and 

fire is primarily in the frequent-fire dependent 

ecosystems in the eastern Cascade Mountains, 

Klamath Mountains of southern Oregon and 

northern California, and the southern Coastal 

Mountains (figure 2-5) (chapter 5, Fire and Fuels 

Management). Updated land management 

plans need to support the use of natural fire 

as an ecological tool and use a risk-based 

strategy to identify places on the landscape 

where fire can safely and effectively be managed 

to benefit resources. To reflect the National 

Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, 

plans need to emphasize working with partners 

and neighbors to take an all-lands approach to 

fire management that supports a spectrum of 

management options, including prescribed fire, 

mechanical treatments, suppression, managed 

wildfires, and working with communities to 

increase their resilience to fire. 

“In the era of megafires that sweep 

across landscapes in multiple 

ownerships, no single entity can 

meet the challenge alone at the scale 

needed to reduce fire risk across 

broad landscapes.”

– Toward Shared Stewardship: 

Across Landscapes (2018)

“Use of naturally ignited wildfires to 

achieve resource objectives is very 

important because, in most areas, 

current amounts of prescribed fire are 

too little to affect a sufficient area” 

– Spies and others 2018 

(North and others 2012, 2015)

39 North and others 2012, 2015. 40 Spies and others, 2018a. p. 172 41 Spies and others, 2018a.
page

32

CHAPTER

2

45,186 

75,721 

1,461 

89,275 

71,185 

65,704 

42,818 

147 

6,806 

24,124 

89,666 

29 

106,465 

136,835 

135 

97,796 

8,685 

Willamette 1,715 

Umpqua

Six Rivers

Siuslaw

Shasta-Trinity

Rogue River-Siskiyou s

Olympic

Okanogan-Wenatchee

Ochoco

Mt. Hood

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie

Modoc

Mendocino

Lassen

Klamath

Gifford Pinchot

Fremont-Winema

Deschutes

 - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000

Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction and 

Harvest

Rx Fire Low Severity 

Wildfire

Moderate Severity 

Wildfire

Deficit

Acres

 200,000

Figure 2-5—Mean annual acres of disturbance for frequent-fire dependent ecosystems on each national forest in the 

BioA area, in contrast to the amount of fire disturbance expected for these ecosystems. Totals are based on 2008–2018 

data. The deficit bar is the difference between the amount of fire that historically, or naturally, was on the landscape and 

the amount of wildfire, prescribed fire, and hazardous fuels treatment currently on the landscape. Land management 

plan direction that provides for use of treatments that close the gap will help restore the role of fire.
CHAPTER 

2

Sustainable Timber

RECOMMENDATION 7—EXPAND THE USE OF TIMBER HARVEST AS A 

RESTORATION TOOL TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS TO 

COMMUNITIES.

While remaining fairly stable for the past decade (chapter 3, Sustainable Timber), timber harvest levels fall short of 

what was anticipated under existing land management plans,42 and they are not expected to significantly increase 

in the BioA area in the future under current land management direction (chapter 4, Sustainable Timber). Updating 

existing plans to identify and expand where timber harvest is an appropriate tool to support desired ecological 

conditions would help to increase the pace and scale of landscape restoration and the resulting timber harvests could 

support the local or regional economy. Combining an ecological forestry approach (Evolving Timber Harvest Methods; 

chapter 3, Sustainable Timber) with timber production would help support a more predictable and sustainable supply 

of timber in the BioA area, where timber processing infrastructure and workforce both play a critical role in meeting 

restoration needs (chapter 4, Sustainable Timber). 

Modernizing land management plan direction, in partnership with 

Tribes in California, Oregon, and Washington, is key to working 

toward regional ecological integrity and community sustainability. 

For example, Tribal strategies, like the Plan for the Klamath Tribes,43

and state forest assessments and action plans provide insight into 

areas where timber harvest offers mutual benefits to achieve crossboundary restoration goals.

We estimate that about 7 million acres across the BioA area need restoration through mechanical treatments 

or fire44 (chapter 4, Ecological Integrity). In the frequent-fire-dependent ecosystems east of the Cascade Range, in 

the Klamath Mountains, and in the southern coastal ecoregion, restoration to increase resilience is an urgent need 

(chapter 5, Sustainable Timber). 

Harvesting trees to meet restoration goals is often restricted by a combination of planning incompatibilities, such 

as direction for late-successional reserves and survey and manage standards and guidelines (chapter 4, Ecological 

Integrity and Sustainable Timber). However, taking a narrowly interpreted or passive approach to management to 

protect at-risk species and old-growth habitat is not necessarily helpful to ecosystems and habitats in the long-term, 

especially in dry forest types that historically experience 

frequent fire.45 In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Revised 

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl and Final 

Critical Habitat Rule recommend active management to 

revitalize forest ecosystems and reduce fire risk (chapter 

2, Recommendation 9).46 Active management within and 

outside the reserve network of the NWFP is important to 

meet many of our ecological goals.47 Two examples where 

active restoration through timber harvest might be needed 

but is limited under current plan direction are managing 

scenery resources where trees might be cut to open up 

views and managing habitat for ungulates, such as deer, 

where trees might need to be cut to generate forage. 

Updating plans to expand the use of timber harvest as a 

restoration tool can help us meet ecological objectives and 

could support socioeconomic goals in local communities. 

“... ecological forestry recognizes that 

forest are ecosystems with diverse biota, 

complex structure, and multiple functions, 

and not simply collections of trees 

valuable primarily for the production of 

wood. In doing so it seeks to maintain the 

fundamental capacities (integrity) of the 

forest ecosystems to which it is applied.” 

Franklin and others 2018 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

C

N E V A D A

A

L I F

O

R

N I A

COLUMBIA RIVER

GORGE NATIONAL

SCENIC AREA

SIUSLAW

FREMO NT - WIN EMA

OLY MPIC

GIFFORD

PINCHOT

OCHOCO

MOUNT

HOOD

UM PQUA

K L A M A T H MODOC

MENDOCINO

SHASTA - 

TRINITY

S I X R I V E R S

OK A N O G A N - WE N A TC H E E

MT. BAKER - SNOQUALMIE

CROOKED RIVER

NATIONAL GRASSLAND

WIL L A M E TT E

LASSEN

R O G U E R I V E R - 

S I S K I Y O U

DESCHUTES

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

NWFP Boundary

Bioregional Assessment of

National Forest System Lands

page

33

G O

E V A 

Deschutes

Umpqua

Mt. Hood

Ochoco

Willamette

7 million acres, about the size 

of the Mt Hood, Willamette, 

Ochoco, Deschutes, and 

Umpqua National Forests 

combined, across the BioA 

need restoration through 

mechanical or fire treatment.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E N

C

N E D A N 

A

L I F

O

R

N I A

COLUMBIA RIVER

GORGE NATIONAL

SCENIC AREA

SIUSLAW

FREMO NT - WIN EMA

OLY MPIC

GIFFORD

PINCHOT

OCHOCO

MOUNT

HOOD

UM PQUA

K L A M A T H MODOC

MENDOCINO

SHASTA - 

TRINITY

S I X R I V E R S

OK A N O G A N - WE N A TC H E E

MT. BAKER - SNOQUALMIE

CROOKED RIVER

NATIONAL GRASSLAND

WIL L A M E TT E

LASSEN

R O G U E R I V E R - 

S I S K I Y O U

DESCHUTES

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

NWFP Boundary

Bioregional Assessment of

National Forest System Lands

42 Grinspoon and others, 2016.

43 Hatcher and others, 2017. 44 Ringo and others, 2019. 45 Spies and others, 2018a. 46 Spies and others, 2018a. 47 Spies and others, 2018a.
page

34

CHAPTER

2

Habitat Management

Maintaining or restoring ecological integrity is expected to provide for the habitat needs of species and the diversity 

of plant and animal communities (coarse-filter approach). A coarse-filter approach provides for a diversity of habitat 

types at various scales, such as complex early seral habitat, to account for the complexity of these landscapes and the 

species that depend on them. Sometimes this approach doesn’t adequately consider unique habitat requirements, and 

then there is a need for species-specific management that focuses directly on one species (like the marbled murrelet) 

and its specific habitat needs, this is called a fine-filter approach. 

The NWFP emphasized fine-filter approaches to conservation for the spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and 

hundreds of other species, although it recognized that both coarse-filter and fine-filter approaches were 

needed.48 The reserve system has been successful in conserving and 

developing northern spotted owl habitat on federal lands, although the 

owl population is still declining due to a combination of other factors 

(chapters 3 and 4, Habitat Management). However, the emphasis in 

the NWFP on one size fits all dense, multi-layer old-growth habitat 

is not always ecologically appropriate, especially outside of fireinfrequent forests49 (chapters 4 and 5, Habitat Management). 

The NWFP survey and manage standards and guidelines are a finefilter approach that was designed to protect biological diversity. The 

standards and guidelines have increased our knowledge about species 

that depend on late-successional and old-forest habitat (chapter 3 

Habitat Management). However, they haven’t been fully implemented 

primarily because of the complexity and cost of individually surveying 

for and managing so many species—currently 298 (chapter 4 Habitat 

Management). Taking a coarse-filter approach can help us manage 

for the habitat needs of multiple species, including species that are 

considered imperiled or vulnerable. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

is a good example of a multispecies, coarse-filter approach 

that has improved conditions within aquatic and riparian ecosystems that 

anadromous fish and other organisms depend on. 

Ecological integrity has been compromised in more frequent-fire dependent 

ecosystems where loss of old forest from high-severity wildfire has been 

concentrated in recent years.50 This can have negative impacts on species 

habitat and biological diversity. Plan direction to protect species habitat needs 

to be grounded in ecological principles and acknowledge the differences 

between ecosystem types to promote resilience to fire, climate change, and other drivers and stressors. We also need 

to update land allocations to be better aligned with the habitats they are trying to protect, such as critical habitat for 

northern spotted owl and late-successional reserves (chapter 5, Sustainable Timber). 

To more successfully manage species habitat, we need to reassess how we are using ecosystem versus species-specific 

approaches in our land management plans, and ensure we are managing our ecosystems to be resilient in the face of 

change. Maintaining or restoring ecological conditions like those under which native species have evolved offers the 

best assurance against losses of biological diversity and maintenance of habitats for most species in an area.51 Using a 

combination of management approaches is necessary to help ensure conservation of both individual species 

and biodiversity.52 

RECOMMENDATION 8—EVOLVE FROM SINGLE-SPECIES FOCUS TO A 

COMPLEMENTARY ECOSYSTEM AND SPECIES APPROACH TO MAINTAIN 

DIVERSITY OF PLANT AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES AND SPECIES PERSISTENCE. 

“Conserving biodiversity is about 

more than protecting old-growth 

forests; it is also about maintaining 

processes, other successional 

stages, and forest dynamics at 

multiple scales.”

Spies and others 2018

48 Stine and Spies, 2018.

49 Spies and others, 2018. 

50 Davis and others in progress; subject to peer review, Davis and others, 2015.

51 36 CFR Part 219 National Forest System Land Management Planning Preamble.

52 Marcot and others, 2018.

Pine Marten
page

35CHAPTER 

2

RECOMMENDATION 9—PROMOTE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT IN PLANT AND ANIMAL 

HABITATS TO RESTORE AND ENCOURAGE ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE. 

As highlighted in previous recommendations, we must manage for species habitat along with other management 

objectives to ensure our national forests and grasslands can continue to provide social, economic, and ecological 

benefits. Passive management—allowing nature to take its course to restore ecosystem conditions—can protect habitat 

and biodiversity. However, current conditions across parts of the BioA area are putting habitats, communities, and 

resources at risk. In some cases, active intervention is needed to restore ecological integrity and support the long-term 

sustainability of benefits that national forests and grasslands provide.

We have largely been successful in maintaining intact habitat for species that depend on dense, multi-layered oldgrowth forest, particularly within the NWFP late-successional reserve network53 (chapter 3, Ecological Integrity). 

Similarly, our riparian reserve network created by the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, PACFISH, INFISH and Sierra 

Nevada Framework has been successful in protecting riparian habitat and water quality with distinct benefits to fish 

and amphibians (chapter 3, Ecological Integrity).54 However, management of diverse wildlife habitats involves more 

than just protecting old-growth forests.55 Management also requires maintaining a variety of ecological processes and 

all successional stages on our dynamic landscapes,56 such as complex early-seral habitat for pollinators and early-seral 

dependent birds.

Under current land management plans, management direction that protects habitats and tree structural stages and 

size classes creates barriers to treatments that are needed to restore habitats and increase ecosystem resilience 

(chapter 4, Ecological Integrity). Monitoring and best available science tells us that to foster ecological integrity across 

a diversity of habitat components for northern spotted owl, we must allow for active habitat management within and 

outside of the reserve networks. For example, the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service) recommends protecting the best of the spotted owl’s remaining habitat, while also revitalizing forest 

ecosystems through active management.57 Active management might include “carefully applied prescriptions such 

as fuels treatment to reduce the threat of severe fires, thinning to 

help older trees grow faster, and restoration to enhance habitat 

and return the natural dynamics of a healthy forest landscape.”58

We know that in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems, forests are 

currently experiencing uncharacteristic fire. If not actively managed 

using mechanical treatments and prescribed fire, these forests will 

be increasingly susceptible to more large and high severity fires that 

could negatively impact ecological integrity (chapter 4, Fire and 

Fuels Management and Habitat Management). 

For example, our current reserve network was developed and located 

on the landscape to protect fire-infrequent forests, but the network 

also includes fire-diverse and frequent-fire dependent forests. 

Different fire groups require a variety of management techniques 

to maintain and restore resilience in the face of wildfire and climate 

change (chapter 4, Ecological Integrity and Fire and Fuels Management). Static late-successional reserves might not 

be able to meet the needs of all old growth-dependent species because large disturbance events, combined with 

changes in fire on the landscape due to climate change, reduce or isolate a reserve59 (chapter 5, Habitat Management). 

As discussed in earlier recommendations, the dynamic nature and ecological capabilities of the landscape must be 

incorporated into the design of the reserve system to ensure that it is a connected system of habitats that meets the 

needs of its dependent species.

Using a system of reserves has been a critical component of conservation in the BioA area. However, updates to the 

current reserve system are needed to allow for active management to increase connectivity and support fire and other 

key natural disturbance processes60, which is an issue in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems. Active management 

inside and outside NWFP reserves is needed to promote biodiversity and ecological resilience.61

“Active rather than passive human 

participation in the initiation and 

development of forest ecosystems has 

probably never been more appropriate 

than in the 21st century when human 

kind has altered so many of the 

fundamental conditions under which 

forest ecosystems have evolved. We 

believe forests in this century will often 

require human participation to assist them 

in their continued adaption to shifting 

environments and disturbance regimes...” 

Franklin and others 2018

53 Davis and others, 2015

Davis and others in progress; subject to peer review. 

54 Reeves and others, 2018.

55 Marcot and others, 2018.

56 Spies and others, 2018.

57 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a.

58 Marcot and others, 2018 59 Marcot and others, 2018; Spies and others, 2018; Reilly and others, 2018. 60 Spies and others, 2018b. 61 Spies and others, 2018.
page

36

CHAPTER

2

Sustainable Recreation

RECOMMENDATION 10—RECOGNIZE THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO 

COMMUNITIES AND PEOPLE FROM SUSTAINABLE RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES. 

Participation in recreational activities is how most of us experience our national forests and grasslands; however, 

recreation was not a major focus of the land management plans for the forests and grasslands within the BioA area. 

In contrast to the NWFP’s guidance for natural resource management, there is no overall consistency to recreation 

management (chapter 4, Sustainable Recreation). The lack of uniform management direction related to recreation 

inhibits our ability to effectively and efficiently address management concerns for resources that cross multiple 

administrative boundaries, such as trails and designated wilderness, and can be confusing to the public. The 

increasing demands and economic significance of recreation activity as well as the impacts of excessive deferred 

maintenance and a changing climate was not anticipated in 1994. These changes and lack of recreation direction 

undermine our ability to manage recreation resources 

and ensure their long-term sustainability. 

Land management plans in the BioA area should 

support sustainable recreation by better integrating 

resource and recreation management objectives 

(chapter 4, Sustainable Recreation). For example, 

while the NWFP has helped preserve and improve 

the outstanding natural qualities that encourage 

visitation (chapter 3, Sustainable Recreation), options 

for addressing recreation issues, such as overuse and 

facilities maintenance, are often limited due to the 

need to meet species conservation objectives within 

late-successional reserves and riparian reserves. 

However, not addressing recreation issues can have 

negative impacts to aquatic systems, wildlife habitat, 

and other resources (chapter 4, Ecological Integrity). There are opportunities within land management plans to meet 

species conservation objectives, while also increasing recreation management options and our ability to maintain, 

expand, or create new sites. Moving forward we desire to appropriately design and manage recreation facilities to 

meet both recreation and Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Taking an integrated approach to recreation 

management and ecological needs can help us more sustainably meet the needs of visitors and support 

local economies.

Land management planning efforts must continue to consider wide-ranging recreation challenges and develop 

tools that can be consistently applied, while understanding the unique recreation opportunities and the needs of 

surrounding communities on individual national forests and grasslands in the BioA area. Evaluating recreation 

demands that will complement state outdoor recreation action plans and other management strategies is 

important to integrate cohesive recreation direction. 

Land management planning offers the opportunity to 

work with the public to identify recreation emphasis areas 

that can help focus resources on priority maintenance or 

development needs as well as help respond to changing 

recreation demands, particularly for national forests and 

grasslands located near metropolitan areas where the 

greatest recreation challenges are expected. (chapter 5, 

Sustainable Recreation). 

NWFP area visitors spend about $612 million each 

year on lodging, restaurants, souvenirs, and other 

trip-related expenses.62

62 Charnley and others, 2018.
page

37CHAPTER 

2

Modernization Options

The integrated recommendations presented in this chapter focus on several major issues impacting multiple national 

forests and grasslands across the BioA area that can be influenced by land management planning. Using these 

recommendations as a starting point, the Forest Service will engage the public as we develop a strategy for updating 

land management plans across the BioA area. We want to keep and enhance management direction that’s working well, 

but make changes where necessary to meet today’s social, economic, and ecological conditions and challenges on our 

dynamic landscapes. Large-scale management challenges, such as climate change, affect all the national forests and 

grasslands across the BioA area. Other challenges, including maintenance of spotted owl habitat and maintaining the 

role of wildfire in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems, are unique to or more urgent on individual or several national 

forests and grasslands. To increase efficiency in land management, it’s important for modernization efforts to create 

consistent direction for universal challenges, but also to develop direction that recognizes and is compatible with 

diverse ecosystems and communities. 

Potential Strategies for Land Management Modernization

Incremental Plan 

Revision and Amendment

Simultaneous Plan Revision—All 19 forests and grasslands in the BioA area would complete plan revision at the same time. 

This approach, like the landscape-level approach used during the NWFP, would ensure consistency and compatibility among the 

plans and would contribute to standardizing the formats of land management plans to help develop a common understanding of 

management direction. Completing simultaneous plan modernization presents significant capacity and coordination challenges 

across 19 responsible officials and their staff; however, efficiencies might be realized if phases of the process are streamlined and 

expected timelines are met. If, during simultaneous plan updating, the required analyses are integrated and conditions change 

significantly on one national forest or grassland requiring different or additional analysis, all 19 units would likely be impacted. 

Finally, this strategy might present a challenge to meaningful engagement with the public in the planning process because of the 

amount and complexity of information and the breadth of the geographic scope. 
page

38

CHAPTER

2

Incremental Plan Revision—We would revise three to six land management plans at the same time based upon similar challenges 

and geography. As an example, we could start with five units in the southwestern BioA area based on growing departure in 

desired ecological conditions, vulnerability to fire cost and behavior, and dependency of local communities on benefits from 

national forests and grasslands. The planning effort on the next group of units would begin approximately 1 year before the 

process is complete on the first group, and so on until revisions for all 19 units are complete. This option would allow the Forest 

Service to focus on the units with the most urgent needs for modernization first and would support our ability to learn as we go, 

which will help us continually improve land management planning efficiencies. Budgeting and staffing needs would be extended 

across a longer period than under the simultaneous plan revision option but would be lower per year and therefore, potentially 

more sustainable. Under this approach it would take at least 12 years to complete revision on all 19 units and would maintain the 

outdated condition of many plans for a longer time. Ensuring consistency and compatibility between plans that are in different 

groups would require close coordination between planning teams as one group of plans is finalized and updating is started on the 

next group. 

Amendment(s)—Under this option, we would complete a range-wide amendment of all or a subset the land management plans to 

address one or more of the topic areas identified as needing change in the BioA. For instance, this option could be used to develop 

up-front, standardized agreements on range-wide management for listed species such as the northern spotted owl. This method 

could specifically address issues like northern spotted owl habitat connectivity throughout its range and facilitate Engendered 

Species Act consultation on future plan revisions. Amendments could also be used to better align late-successional reserve 

boundaries with late-successional habitat. An amendment process, even at a large scale, would be shorter than full plan revisions, 

and might take only 2 years to complete. This approach would allow the Forest Service to focus on the most immediate needs 

within the BioA area and might be a more streamlined option for creating direction that is compatible with the various ecosystems 

and conditions. Opportunities for public engagement would be more focused on specific areas and issues, which might allow for 

more robust public involvement. A drawback to this approach is that it would not completely address the problems associated with 

overlapping management direction. In addition, while this approach would focus on the most urgent issues within the BioA area, it 

would not be a comprehensive modernization of all plans; plans would remain outdated and many important updates would not 

be completed. 

Individual Forest Plan Revision—Historically, land management plans are revised or amended by individual national forests or 

grasslands. However, many of the ecological and socioeconomic conditions in the BioA area span many forests and grasslands and 

are therefore, best addressed at a landscape scale. Completing individual land management plan modernizations wouldn’t meet the 

agency’s goal of reducing the time and cost to produce efficient, effective, and high-quality land management plans to accomplish 

more work on the ground and be more responsive to our public.

Incremental Plan Revision and Amendment—We would begin modernization on a prioritized group of units, as in the incremental 

plan revision option, and simultaneously complete amendments on other units that are facing some of the same urgent issues. 

For instance, as a group of plans are updated to include refined and improved direction associated with the natural role of fire 

in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems, all other plans on units 

with similar ecosystems could be amended to incorporate the same 

language. This approach would allow for a broad-scale modernization of 

plan components to meet immediate needs without the complexity of 

updating many plans at the same time. The approach would contribute 

to consistent management of similar issues across the landscape as 

well as management that is compatible with the varied ecosystems. 

Potentially, this approach would contribute to more robust public 

involvement related to the specific issues on which amendments were 

focused. However, comprehensive modernization of most plans would 

still be delayed and amending plans rather than revising them would 

still result in overlapping layers of management direction. 

Many of the identified opportunities for modernizing the land 

management plans in the BioA area cross multiple national forest 

and grassland boundaries. Some management opportunities on some 

national forests and grasslands are more urgent than others, while other 

challenges experienced across several national forests and grasslands would benefit from a consistent approach. Some forests 

have a more urgent need for restoration activities to improve the resiliency of the landscape than others (figure 2-6). The need for 

management consistency arises when multiple national forests and grasslands face the same management challenge; an example is 

managing habitat to facilitate the recovery of the northern spotted owl across that species’ range (figure 2-7). We gain efficiencies 

by combining modernization efforts around similar management needs.

Combination approach—An 

Example 

Relevant direction from the US Fish and Wildlife’s 

Conservation Strategy for Grizzly Bear in the 

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 2019 63 

has been incorporated as amendments to the 

landmanagement plans for the Helena, Kootenai, 

Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forests. The 

Flathead National Forest incorporated the relevant 

direction into its land management plan revision.

This combination of revision and amendments 

ensures that habitat for this wide-ranging species 

is managed consistently and appropriately across 

all affected national forests.

63 NCDE Subcommittee, 2019. 
page

39CHAPTER 

2

Figure 2-6—National forests and grasslands within the 

BioA area rated by urgency to address lack of resiliency. 

High urgency includes the Fremont-Winema, Rogue RiverSiskiyou, Six Rivers, Klamath, Modoc, Lassen, Shasta-Trinity, 

Mendocino, and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked 

River National Grassland. Moderate urgency includes the 

Okanogan-Wenatchee, Umpqua and Deschutes National 

Forests. Map shows logical groupings of national forests 

and grasslands for incremental plan revision.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0km 50 100

Lower urgency

Moderate urgency

Highest urgency

BioA Boundary

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 10050km

Lower urgency

Moderate urgency

Highest urgency

BioA Boundary

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

0 mi 50 100 E 0km 50 100

Critical Habitat

Northern spotted owl

Northern spotted owl range

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

0 mi 50 100 E 0 10050km

Critical Habitat

Northern spotted owl

Northern spotted owl range

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

Critical Habitat

Figure 2-7—National forests and grasslands within the range of the 

northern spotted owl and its designated critical habitat. The map is an 

example of an issue that is best addressed at a landscape scale.
page

40

CHAPTER

2

Conclusion 

In this chapter, we presented key management recommendations aimed at addressing the complex social, economic, 

and ecological challenges that national forests and grasslands in the BioA area are facing. We recognized the 

interdependent relationships of these challenges and identified how updates to land management plans could improve 

the ability of national forests and grasslands to continue to deliver benefits to communities and increase the ability 

to manage for improved ecological sustainability across the landscape. We presented this information by organizing 

recommendations under five categories of resource management changes needed across the landscape: (1) ecological 

integrity, (2) fire and fuels management, (3) sustainable timber, (4) habitat management, and (5) sustainable recreation; 

these categories continue through the remainder of the BioA. Chapter 3 presents what’s working well in the existing 

land management plans and identifies what should be retained or modified in future planning updates to reflect current 

knowledge and learning from past experiences. 
page

41CHAPTER

3

Chapter 3

What’s Working Well?

“NWFP monitoring indicates that progress is being made toward meeting several of the original longterm goals, namely maintenance of vegetation conditions that support northern spotted owls and marbled 

murrelets, protecting dense old-growth forest, providing habitat for aquatic and riparian-associated 

organisms, and reducing the loss of mature and old forest to logging.” 64 

In chapter 2, we described recommendations for future planning efforts in the BioA area. Throughout this and 

subsequent chapters, we provide additional context to the recommendations highlighted in chapter 2 and integrate 

information using the five broad categories. 

In many cases, land management plans in the BioA area are delivering effective, landscape-scale management, 

achieving positive community benefits, and moving us toward or maintaining desired conditions. During the 2015 

public listening sessions, we heard that our public and stakeholders want to keep the parts of the NWFP and other 

land management planning 

efforts that have been and 

continue to be effective. This 

chapter is a broad look at what’s 

working well in existing land 

management direction across 

the landscape in terms of 

sustaining ecological integrity 

and achieving benefits to 

communities. We do not touch 

on every aspect of what is 

working well; this is a summary. 

And, we didn’t include findings 

about what’s working well 

for fire and fuels because we 

learned most of these issues are 

management challenges and 

opportunities for change (see 

chapter 4, Fire and Fuels). 

Through monitoring and evaluation, which are continuous learning tools that form the backbone of Forest Service 

adaptive management, we learn about what’s working well on the lands that we manage. This assessment relied heavily 

on the results of the NWFP’s broad-scale monitoring program but did not evaluate the program itself. The information 

from the monitoring program meets research publication standards, including peer review, and we use it to tell us if 

changes are needed to plan direction, management activities, or the monitoring program itself, or if we should reassess 

the current conditions and trends in the plan area. Broad-scale monitoring answers questions about multiple plan areas 

across a Forest Service region. NWFP monitoring65, in late-successional and old-growth forests, of northern spotted 

owls and marbled murrelet habitats, watershed and socio-economic conditions, and Tribal-federal relationshiphas been 

successful66 in helping us determine if we’re moving toward the desired conditions. The NWFP monitoring might serve 

as a model, with some adjustments, for similar efforts across the BioA area in the future.

64 Spies and others, 2018b. p. 970.

65 https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/reo/monitoring/. 66 Spies and others, 2018b.
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 100

Physical Habitat Score

Rotation 1

Rotation 2

page

42CHAPTER 3

Ecological Integrity

Reserve Network. Late-successional reserves, riparian reserves, and congressionally reserved lands are part of a 

landscape-scale approach that has worked well in supporting the integrity of ecosystems, which includes support 

for aquatic habitat (figure 3-1) and conservation of habitat for wildlife species. The reserve network also ensures 

that consistent management direction is applied to each type of land use allocation (figure Intro-3). Other plan 

amendments, like the PACFISH, INFISH, Eastside Screens, and Sierra Nevada Framework, also have been successful in 

achieving some desired outcomes including connecting and conserving aquatic habitat and dense, multi-layered forest. 

40

30

20

10

0

Density

Figure 3-1—This graph highlights a shift to 

the right (slight improvement) in physical 

habitat scores determined from stream 

surveys conducted during 2002–2009 

(Rotation 1) and those performed during 

2010-2013 (Rotation 2). The physical habitat 

score is the individual ratings for amounts 

of fine sediment in channel substrate and 

presence of large wood. While the amounts 

of fine sediment in channel substrate and 

large wood scores were similar between the 

two rotations, the channel substrate score 

improved, meaning that less sediment was 

detected throughout stream channels across 

the NWFP area. The improvement indicates 

that changes in land management have been 

effective at improving aquatic habitat, which 

benefits federally listed salmon, steelhead, 

and Bull trout.

While land use allocations and the reserve network have benefited many resources, some adjustments are needed to 

create landscape resilience, especially in frequent-fire dependent and fire diverse (mixed severity) ecosystems. A wellconnected reserve network that will persist into the future will incorporate climate change refugia and fire refugia.

Conservation of Dense Multi-layered Old-growth Forests. The NWFP conservation strategies and other strategies, 

including the Eastside Screens and the Sierra Nevada Framework, have effectively stopped the loss of old trees and 

old-growth forest on federal lands, mainly in dense multi-layered forest.67 Old-growth forest is generally considered 

stable on federal lands and has increased slightly since 1993, providing the abundance, diversity, connectivity, and 

availability needed to support ecosystem functions and specific old-growth-dependent species in the BioA area (figure 

3-2).68 Reversing the loss of old-growth trees and old-growth forest is mainly due to stopping clear cutting practices and 

allowing trees to mature on federal lands. 

While this old-growth forest conservation approach on federal land has been successful in some respects, old-growth 

forests that were not defined or emphasized in the above planning efforts are increasingly at risk of loss due to fire.69 

These include old-growth forests in frequent-fire dependent and fire diverse (mixed severity) ecosystems. Loss of oldgrowth forests from wildfires in California, southern Oregon, and east of the Cascade crest have been masked by 

gains in old-growth forest on federal lands west of the Cascades where trees planted after large 20th century fires have 

grown into the old-forest category.70 Acres of old-growth forests have declined in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems.

67 Spies and others, 2018a.

68 Davis and others, 2015; Davis and others in review.

69 Spies and others, 2018a. 70 Davis and others, 2019.
page

43CHAPTER

3

Location of old-forest change

Figure 3-2—Overall, the amount of old-growth habitat remained stable in the 

NWFP area from 1993-2017. However, where the habitat is located has changed 

due to losses and additions across time. (Adapted from Davis and others, in 

progress; subject to peer review).

Conservation of Aquatic Resources. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is working and provides a solid foundation for 

upcoming planning efforts, with some opportunity for improvements.71 Intensive monitoring efforts have revealed 

improving trends for aquatic habitat (figure 3-1), aquatic macroinvertebrates, and water temperatures. 72 Even with 

climate change projections indicating warmer stream temperatures,monitoring data are showing cooler (improving) 

stream temperatures across the last 20 years within the NWFP area,which could be a sign of the effectiveness of 

climate change refugia principles. Monitoring indicates that upslope and riparian conditions have generally improved 

across the NWFP area.73 PACFISH, INFISH,74 and the Sierra Nevada Framework,75 like the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, 

also are successfully protecting and restoring aquatic habitat and watersheds. 

Percentage old-forest change

more old forest no change less old forest

19%

72%

9%

71 Reeves and others, 2018.

72 Miller and others, 2017.

73 Miller and others, 2017.

74 Roper and others, 2019.

75 Furnish, 2013.
page

44CHAPTER 3

All-lands Aquatic Conservation

Since adoption of the NWFP amendment, many community-based watershed restoration partnerships, including 

conservation districts, water boards, regional fish enhancement groups, and watershed councils, have formed. Many 

have adopted an all-lands stewardship approach by conducting assessments and restoration across federal, state, and 

private borders to improve fish habitat and water quality.

The Willamette National Forest is one of 13 partners forming the McKenzie Watershed Council in Oregon, a group that 

works together to help restore watershed conditions in the McKenzie River sub basin (figure 3-3). The Forest Service 

offers unique technical skills and funding for many of the council’s projects, such as stream restoration, fish passage 

restoration, and outreach efforts. 

Forest Service staff have acquired a highly useful skill set through the implementation of NWFP, PACFISH, INFISH, and 

Sierra Nevada Framework aquatic restoration programs, which guide implementation of diverse, active management 

treatments (for example, stream and fish passage restoration) to efficiently and effectively restore water quality and 

aquatic ecosystems at watershed scales.

Figure 3-3—The McKenzie River watershed and its critical habitat distribution for fish listed under the Endangered Species Act 

cross multiple land ownerships. The land ownership mix demonstrates an all-lands restoration approach, where partners work 

through land boundary and jurisdictional issues to improve watershed conditions for fish, water, wildlife, and local communities.

ESA-listed Fish Critical Habitat and Land 

Ownership in the Mckenzie Subbasin 

Willamette National Forest

ESA-listed Fish Critical Habitat and Land Ownership in the Mck

Critical Habitat

Mckenzie Subbasin

Willamette National Forest

Bureau of Land Management

Private or Unknown

State

Local

Willamette National Forest

0mi 3.75 7.5 15 E 0km 5 10 20

ESA-listed Fish Critical Habitat and Land Ownership in the Mckenzie Subbasin

Critical Habitat

Mckenzie Subbasin

Willamette National Forest

Bureau of Land Management

Private or Unknown

State

Local

Willamette National Forest

0mi 3.75 7.5 15 E 0km 5 10 20

ESA-listed Fish Critical Habitat and Land Ownership in the Mck

Critical Habitat

Mckenzie Subbasin

Willamette National Forest

Willamette National Forest
page

45CHAPTER

3

Riparian Management Zones. These areas, a cornerstone of the NWFP, PACFISH, INFISH, and Sierra Nevada Framework 

aquatic strategies, have resulted in watershed improvements across the BioA area. Passive restoration—when riparian 

areas recover naturally without active forest management—has been practiced in riparian management areas and 

has contributed to watershed improvements. Likewise, large trees in riparian areas that were typically harvested 

before 1994 are now left to grow and provide stream shade, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and to create a network of 

migration corridors for animals throughout and between watersheds. 

Additionally, streamflow and water-quality conditions, important for providing clean drinking water and enough water 

for agriculture, recreation, and environmental needs, have been largely maintained or improved. Monitoring indicates 

that upslope and riparian conditions have generally improved across the NWFP area.76 Existing land management 

direction is successfully protecting and restoring aquatic 

habitat and watersheds.77 Restoring watersheds and 

riparian areas also has resulted in areas of climate 

refugia for species sensitive to changing temperatures 

and precipitation patterns.78

Carbon Sequestration and Climate Change. Forests and 

grasslands in the BioA area store large amounts of 

both above and below ground carbon in live and dead 

plant and animal material (figure 3-4).79 At current 

rates, timber harvest and disturbance will have little 

impact on carbon sequestration on federal lands in the 

wetter, western forests of Oregon, and Washington.80

As stated in the Forest Service’s 2018 Synthesis of Science 

to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest 

Plan Area, “the effects of climate change have become 

a major concern and focus of research since the NWFP 

was developed and implemented.”81 Although there 

is uncertainty associated with the effects of climate 

change, modernization of land management plans in the 

BioA area will likely help national forests and grasslands 

adapt to the effects of climate change and continue to 

work well at sequestering carbon. 

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I

E

A

0 mi 50 100

0 km 50 100

Carbon Density in Tons/Acre

27 - 42

43 - 59

60 - 79

80 - 110

111 - 168

BioA Boundary

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I

E

A

0 mi 50 100

0 10050km

Carbon Density in Tons/Acre

27 - 42

43 - 59

60 - 79

80 - 110

111 - 168

BioA Boundary

Carbon Density in 

Tons/Acre

Figure 3-4—Carbon density on national forests and grasslands 

within the BioA area, as of 2013. Most forests and grasslands 

within the BioA area, especially those in western parts of the 

BioA, have much higher carbon densities than the rest of the 

country (figure 1-4). Source: USDA Forest Service 2015.

76 Miller and others, 2017.

77 Roper and others, 2019.

78 Reeves and others, 2018

79 USDA Forest Service, 2015. figure 3-4.

80 Spies and others, 2018a.

81 Spies and others, 2018b.
page

46CHAPTER 3

Traditional Ecocultural Resources. Ecosystems within the BioA area provide and support a broad range of cultural 

resources sites, areas, buildings, structures, and objects that are important to American Indian Tribes. New and 

emerging forest management concepts, including restoring frequent-fire-dependent systems, align with Tribal 

ecocultural resource perspectives.82

Tribal communities contribute to the social and economic benefits of national forests and grasslands through Tribal 

culture and viewpoints that can help with restoration-related work and interpretive and training programs. The Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy and its four main components provide long-term resource benefits, such as improved fisheries 

habitat, which are central to Tribal well-being.83

First Foods

First foods are traditional foods that have been and remain significant in some American Indian Tribal diets and cultures (Lynn 

and others 2013). Culturally significant resources, including water, fish, big game, roots, and berries, are used in ceremonies 

as well as for sustenance and economic benefit to perpetuate American Indian sovereignty and cultures.

The Forest Service understands the Tribal significance of treaty 

rights and traditional resources, including first foods. Many Tribal 

members have longstanding, customary knowledge and relationships 

with natural resources on national forests and grasslands. The 

interdependent relationship is one in which Tribal practices nurture 

ecological systems that in turn nurture and sustain cultural continuity 

and identities.

The goal of promoting Tribal ecocultural resources, such as first 

foods, is consistent with emerging direction in forest management 

and the management options presented in the BioA.

82 Long and others, 2018.

83 Long and others, 2018.
page

47CHAPTER

3

Sustainable Timber

Since 2005, timber production levels have remained relatively stable, 

producing an average of 450 million board feet per year from Forest 

Service lands within the NWFP area. Recent harvest levels have also 

been regionally stable at about 72 percent of Forest Service anticipated 

timber production (figure 3-5). While we view our stable timber 

production rates as a success, the fact that production levels are 

consistently below what was anticipated in our land management plans 

is a concern—the predicted harvest of about 600 million board feet 

per year hasn’t been realized. Although commercial harvest of timber 

is planned to continue, conflicting plan direction and restrictions on tree size or stand age, as well as a lack of social 

acceptance of planned harvest methods like regeneration, will likely limit future harvest (chapter 4,

Sustainable Timber).

“Federal forest management contributes 

to socioeconomic well-being in rural 

communities by providing timber and 

nontimber forest products, recreation 

opportunities, jobs, other ecosystem 

services, and backdrops for where people 

want to live and work.” 

Charnley and others 2018 p. 661 

450 million board feet per year from Forest Service lands within the NWFP area

Estimated 

Probable Sale 

Quantity

FS NWFP Total

OR Total

CA Total

WA Total

Figure 3-5—Harvest levels have remained stable in the NWFP area for the past decade, although they have been less than 

projected. The graph shows the amount of timber sold from national forests in the NWFP area between 1994 and 2018 compared 

to the Forest Service estimated probable sale quantity. Forest Service anticipated timber volume is about 600 million board feet and 

the agency has produced an average of about 450 million board feet within the NWFP area annually since 2005.

In addition to timber products, national forests and grasslands provide a variety of nontimber forest products such 

as moss, mushrooms, cones, grasses, and firewood. These products support community and household well-being 

by providing income and economic opportunities, strengthening community networks and relationships, facilitating 

intergenerational ecological knowledge transfer, and enabling nontimber forest product gatherers to develop stronger 

connections with nature and improve their mental and physical health.84 

Evolving timber harvest methods. Forest Service harvest methods shifted from primarily clear cutting in the 1980s and 

early 1990s to mainly commercial thinning after 1994 as we implemented more intermediate harvest treatments with 

multiple objectives.85 More modern intermediate methods, such as variable density thinning and variable retention 

harvest, have been studied and implemented in the BioA area during the past decade. Harvests that retain significant 

structural elements of the pre-harvest stand have largely replaced clearcutting”86 (figure 3-6). Harvest methods continue 

to create timber outputs that contribute to local economies, often along with restoration and resilience projects.

84 Charnley and others, 2018.

85 Spies and others, 2018b. 86 Franklin and others, 2018. p.108.
page

48CHAPTER 3

Stand 

Clearcutting

Single-tree 

Selection

Sanitation

Cut

Salvage

Cut

Commercial 

Thinning

Acres

Figure 3-6—Acres of primary harvest types (clearcutting, commercial thinning, salvage, sanitation, and single-tree selection) 

within the BioA area from 1947 to 2017. There were more than 75,000 acres clear-cut in 1988, while 2007 saw a peak in 

commercial thinning at just under 82,000 acres. Timber harvest practices have moved to mostly commercial thinning with 

almost no stand clearcutting.

commercial thin—An intermediate timber harvest with the objective of reducing stand density primarily to 

improve tree growth and enhance forest resilience. Saw-log size material is a product of this management, although 

regenerating new trees is not an objective. Commercial thinning can include a wide variety of thinning types including 

low, free, selection and crown thinning in addition to variable density thinning, “skips and gaps”, or the Individuals, 

clumps, and openings method.

salvage cut—An intermediate treatment that harvests trees that are dead or dying due to injurious agents like insects 

or disease. A primary objective of this timber harvest is to recover economic value.

sanitation cut—An intermediate harvest removing trees to improve stand vigor by stopping or reducing the actual or 

anticipated spread of insects and disease.

single-tree selection cut—A regeneration harvest where individual trees of various sizes and ages are removed. The 

objective of this treatment is to provide space to grow new trees in a multi-age structure in addition to promoting 

the growth of remaining trees. This is an uneven-aged method. Multiple entries of this activity ultimately result in an 

uneven-aged stand of three or more age classes or sizes.

stand clear-cut—A regeneration harvest that removes all trees in the stand. The objective of this treatment is to grow 

new trees that are all the same age. It produces a fully exposed micro climate and one cohort of regeneration in 

one entry.
page

49CHAPTER

3

In the 21st century, ecological forestry, which includes natural forest ecological models, natural forest development, and 

concepts related to natural disturbances in project design and harvest methods, has become central to how foresters 

approach landscape planning. However, the broadly diverse harvest methods of ecological forestry, including a variety 

of regeneration harvests and multi-aged management, are often controversial and not yet widely accepted or applied. 

The lack of social acceptance, and therefore application, could prove problematic, especially in the face of climate 

change and social and ecological uncertainty. 

The Forest Service is dedicated to supporting the study and use of more modern and diverse methods to meet today’s 

need for resilient landscapes and multiple land management objectives. We will continue to work to build trust and 

improve consideration of the benefits of various harvest methods.

Habitat Management

Old-growth habitat. The northern spotted owl, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, is one 

of many species that relies on old-growth forest habitat. The reserve network established by the NWFP has been 

effective in stemming the loss of old-growth habitat from timber harvest on federal lands;87 however, the owl 

population continues to decline (chapter 4, Habitat Management). The reserve network has also been effective in 

maintaining and enhancing marbled murrelet habitat on federal lands; however, the birds continue to experience 

population declines in the northern portion of the BioA area. Since the NWFP was adopted, additional conservation 

focus has been placed on other species, such as marten, fisher, wolverine, and other mammalian carnivores, who also 

depend in part on late-successional forest habitats.

Broad-scale habitat conservation. The core principles of broad-scale conservation developed in the NWFP area are 

implemented through land use allocations. Late-successional reserves, riparian reserves, and other land use allocations 

that focus on species recovery have provided clear and effective management direction in the context of 

habitat protection. 

Survey and Manage. The survey and manage standards and guidelines in the NWFP require that surveys be conducted 

before initiating management actions, and actions are limited based on the results of the surveys. Survey and manage 

standards and guidelines have added much to our knowledge about rare and uncommon late-successional and oldforest-dependent species in the NWFP area.88 For example, 50 different mollusks have been considered for listing 

during the past 20 years. And, although none were listed, all the decisions were informed by surveys. Survey and 

manage standards and guidelines help us focus on certain individual species and contribute to the modernization of 

forestry practices, such as leaving more dead trees, downed wood, and refugia habitat. However, implementing the 

survey and manage standards and guidelines has been challenging and improvement and updates are needed.

87 O’Hara, 2014.

88 Marcot and others, 2018.
page

50CHAPTER 3

Sustainable Recreation

The Forest Service is one of the largest suppliers of outdoor recreation in the BioA area, providing opportunities for 

experiences and activities to a broad range of users. Special use permits are issued to people, clubs, and businesses for 

many recreational purposes including operation and maintenance of picnic areas, campgrounds, ski areas, and boat 

docks. The permits provide experiences for the recreating public, while addressing public safety and protecting 

natural resources. 

The Pacific Northwest is a showcase of recreation largely due to outstanding natural resources that have been 

maintained and improved through conservation strategies like the NWFP and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

Clean water, healthy vegetation, and improved fishery resources enhance recreation experiences on the national 

forests and grasslands in the BioA area. Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic and Recreation 

Areas provide unique recreation opportunities and complement landscape-scale wildlife management objectives by 

conserving critical habitat.

Forest Service Special Use Permits

The Forest Service’s Special Use Permit Program provides a variety of land use opportunities. Each year, thousands 

of individuals and businesses apply for permits to use national forests and grasslands for such activities as water 

transmission, agriculture, outfitter guiding, telecommunications, research, video productions, road and utility rightsof-way, and recreation. Special use permits provide economic benefits and value for many rural communities. By 

offering more ways to experience our national forests and grasslands, the special use permit program helps enrich 

lives by providing opportunities for lasting memories, personal growth, and a sense of connection with our national 

forests and grasslands. 

The Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area provides one of the largest, most 

diverse, and complex uses of the special use program for recreation. The 2014 

National Recreation Area Management Guide for the Shasta-Trinity estimated 

that there were about 970 recreation special use permits in use within the 

National Recreation Area. This includes permits issued for privately owned 

houseboats and cabins, resorts, marinas, campgrounds, RV parks, outfitter and 

guide services, concessionaires, boat docks, recreation events, and shooting 

ranges. Most commercial recreation use happens at the 13 full-service resorts 

or marinas, while private permitted recreation use is primarily in cabin and 

houseboat ownership. On the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, the annual revenue 

generated from cabins, marinas, and houseboats is nearly $1.5 million. 

Conclusion

In this chapter, we summarized what’s working well in the existing land management plans across the BioA area. 

We recognized that NWFP and other planning direction have met many of their social, economic, and ecological 

goals, and we want to retain aspects of existing plans that provide benefits to communities and ecosystems. We 

also identified where existing science and 

decades of monitoring and implementation 

indicate opportunities to expand upon 

and further improve the parts of existing 

land management plans. In chapter 4, we 

explore where existing direction presents 

management challenges, and we provide 

a preliminary identification of the need to 

change direction to ensure the delivery of 

essential forest benefits to communities and 

the sustainability of ecological integrity in 

the BioA area. 
CHAPTER

4

page

51

Chapter 4

Management Challenges and Opportunities for Change

What you’re about to read is a preliminary identification of opportunities to change existing management direction 

across the BioA area. While much of the landscape-level direction across the 19 national forests and grasslands is 

consistent, in many cases it isn’t compatible with the unique and dynamic ecological, economic, and social issues faced 

by local national forests and grasslands.

The BioA area contains about 24 million acres of national forests and grasslands with a myriad of unique and 

common management challenges; therefore, this chapter is not is a comprehensive look at all the management 

challenges in the BioA. During the next steps of the planning process, we’ll determine the challenges and opportunities 

for management change on each forest and grassland in the BioA area to gain insight on how we can better support 

local economies and sustain ecological integrity. 

Ecological Integrity

Land management plan direction for national forest and grassland restoration is needed to improve and maintain ecological 

function. Improved restoration will better meet the needs of communities now and for future generations.89 About 

18 million acres (65 percent) of the national forests and grasslands in the BioA area lack structural diversity and 

resilience and do not adequately contribute to ecological integrity. Unless we address this issue, often through active 

management, ecological integrity could continue to decline and the benefits we receive from the national forests and 

grasslands today could be diminished for future generations.

About 10 million acres within the BioA area need some type of forest structure restoration to improve and maintain 

ecological function and resilience (figure 4-1). About 2.2 million acres, primarily in our wettest, most fire-infrequent 

ecosystems, need restoration to enhance tree growth and snag development. Natural ecosystem processes and active 

treatments that maintain and enhance old-growth forest are needed to develop and maintain ecosystem function.

An estimated 7 million acres, where there is denser vegetation than would have been naturally supported, 

would benefit from mechanical treatment, fire treatment, or both to achieve more natural, sustainable, and 

resilient densities. This would help these areas be more resilient to drought, insects and disease, as well as fire 

and climate change. Of the 7 million acres, about 3 million acres lack large trees and need disturbance to alter 

density and provide time to develop old-forest attributes. Even when the best available science indicates that active 

management restoration is needed, conflicting management direction makes restoration in riparian areas and upland 

forests challenging.90 Desired conditions identified in most land management plans are too general and not linked to 

landscape-level vegetation restoration or resiliency (figure 4-1).

89 Spies and other, 2018b.

90 Reeves and others, 2018.
CHAPTER 4

page

52

Figure 4-1 Map A—7 million acres of 

national forests and grasslands within the 

BioA area need disturbance restoration 

(for example, mechanical or fire treatments) to 

reduce density and restore forests (disturbance 

restoration). If a watershed has a 45 to 70 

percent restoration needed, it urgently needs 

restoration to maintain ecosystem resilience. 

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

0 mi 50 100 E 0 10050km

Disturbance Restoration

Need by Watershed

0-15%

15-30%

30-45%

45-70%

BioA Boundary

Disturbance Restoration 

Need by Watershed

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Disturbance Restoration 

Need by Watershed

0-15%

15-30%

30-45%

45-70%

BioA Boundary

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

0 mi 50 100 E 0 10050km

Succession Restoration

Need by Watershed

0-15%

15-30%

30-45%

45-70%

BioA Boundary

Figure 4-1 Map B—5 million acres 

of national forests and grasslands 

within the BioA area need succession 

restoration (for example, tree growth

and snag development). This includes 2.2 

million acres of tree growth and complexity 

enhancement needs, primarily west of the 

Cascade crest, and a 3 million acre subset 

of lands where disturbance and succession 

are needed (for example, thinning, under 

burning, and tree growth enhancement). 

Modified from Ringo and others 2019.
CHAPTER

4

page

53

Late-successional reserve direction needs to reflect the dynamic nature of landscapes. The current land management plan 

direction for late-successional reserves is static both in location of the reserves and goals for ecosystems within the 

reserve boundaries. The static condition doesn’t account for or reflect the increasing patch size of large fires and other 

disturbances (for example, drought or insect and disease related mortality), habitat fragmentation, and the dynamic 

nature of the ecosystems within and around the late-successional reserves.91 Although revising late-successional 

reserve assessments might be a way to incorporate new science, updated management direction that reflects the 

dynamic nature of the ecosystems would help provide for connected habitat.

Land management plan direction needs to be more compatible with the unique ecosystems across the BioA area

to help restore and protect national forests and grasslands. It’s necessary to better align management direction with 

the best available science to achieve desired conditions. For example, fire exclusion is leading to unintended ecological 

consequences92 across much of the BioA, but the restoration work needed to address the consequences is difficult 

to implement because plan direction limits our available options. Additionally, there’s a need for plan direction that 

addresses using timber harvest to achieve ecological desired conditions, but existing plans focus on timber outputs 

rather than desired landscape conditions. 

Harvest restrictions on lands within the NWFP reserve network93 and other amendments, such as the Eastside Screens, 

that restrict the size or age of trees available for harvest don’t reflect the best available science.94 The restrictions also 

limit our ability to capitalize on using timber harvest as a tool to improve ecological integrity. For instance, restriction 

on harvesting trees that are more than 80 years old in NWFP late-successional reserves is inconsistent with the best 

available science in many ecosystems.95 Due to the restriction, land management activities in stands older than 80 years 

is complicated, takes additional time and resources, and is generally avoided. Furthermore, the Endangered Species Act 

consultation processes and public controversy are complex.

More Late-successional Reserve

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

More Matrix

Modoc (-1) 

Lassen (-.91)

Mt. Hood (-.39) 

Fremont-Winema (-.28) 

Willamette (-.20) 

Mendocino (-.20) 

Klamath (-.19) 

Umpqua (-.07)

Shasta-Trinity (-.07)

-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 4-2—Index of late-successional reserve and matrix land by national forest. Forests with an index of 1 have almost all 

potential active management land in late-successional reserves. Forests with a value of negative 1 have almost all potential active 

management land in matrix. The Olympic and Siuslaw National Forests have almost all their potential active management in latesuccessional reserves (value of 1). The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has almost 40% more late-successional reserve land than 

matrix land. The Mount Hood National Forest has almost 40% more matrix land than land in late-successional reserves. More land 

in late-successional reserves means that constraints, like the 80-year exemption, will likely make old forest restorative or enhancing 

treatments more difficult, especially as trees naturally age.

91 Spies and others, 2018a. 

92 Spies and others, 2018a.

93 Late-successional reserves, riparian reserves, and congressionally reserved lands.

94 Stine and others, 2014.

95 Spies and others, 2018a.

Deschutes (.01)

Gifford Pinchot (.04)

Six Rivers (.05)

Okanogan-Wenatchee (.17)

Rogue River-Siskiyou (.36)

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie (.55)

Siuslaw (.72)

Olympic (1)
CHAPTER 4

page

54

Stand age and tree size are not the only, nor necessarily the best, measures of ecological health. For example, forests 

more than 80 years old on low productivity sites might be dense and lack understory diversity due to slow growth and 

development and exclusion of fire. When this happens, land management activities could help move the stand toward 

a more natural condition. The 21-inch standard associated with the wildlife standard of the Eastside Screens, restricts 

harvest of trees greater than 21-inches in diameter when old-forest structure is lacking. Due to this constraint, relatively 

young, shade tolerant trees that should be removed to improve ecological resiliency are overly abundant but cannot be 

harvested because they have grown beyond 21 inches in diameter.96 Restrictive management direction in late-successional 

reserves, ungulate habitat, and scenic corridors, which hinders our ability to reduce the risk of insect and disease 

mortality (figure 4-3),97 is another example of the need to update plan direction to reflect the best available science.

96

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Insect and disease prevention 

needs and timber production

Insect and disease prevention 

needs and multiple objectives

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

5 million acres,

70%

2 million 

acres,

30%

Multiple Plan 

Objectives

Timber

Production

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 10050km

Insect and disease prevention 

needs and timber production

Insect and disease prevention 

needs and multiple objectives

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

Insect and disease prevention 

and multiple plan objectives

Figure 4-3—About 7 million acres (28 percent) that need treatments to reduce 

susceptibility to insect and disease are in areas outside of congressionally reserved lands 

or Inventoried Roadless Areas. Of these 7 million acres, about 2 million acres (30 percent) 

are on lands where plan direction emphasizes timber production and insect and disease 

prevention measures, like harvest, to reduce stand density. However, about 5 million acres 

(70 percent) have multiple plan objectives resulting in plan directives that often restrict 

insect and disease prevention measures across the landscape.

Land management plan direction needs to better anticipate the extent or degree of invasive species including plants, insects, 

and animals. Invasive species have changed the nature of forests, grasslands, and aquatic systems, which will negatively 

affect ecosystem function and processes in the future.98 Invasive species generally reduce ecosystem resilience, which 

is of heightened concern in the face of climate change.99 Invasive species were not considered through a contemporary 

lens, or often at all, in the existing land management plans in the BioA area. The result is that managing for invasive 

species is difficult and inefficient due to a lack of consistent guidance within and between forests.

 Stine and others, 2014.

97 Krist and others, 2014.

98 Spies and others, 2018a. 99 Spies and others, 2018a.
CHAPTER

4

page

55

Invasive Species

Along with climate change, invasive plant and animal species are a significant threat to native biodiversity and ecological 

integrity. Climate change also will likely influence the expansion of nonnative plant and animal species, while at the same 

time reducing or even eliminating local occurrences of native species. It’s particularly challenging to manage for species 

biodiversity in the face of both climate change and invasive species. Likewise, invasive species, climate change, and fire 

exclusion have altered fire regimes and vegetation dynamics. 

BioA national forests and grasslands store some of the highest levels of carbon in the United States,100 and land management 

plans need to consider carbon management. Areas that store carbon across the landscape, especially in fire-infrequent 

systems, are important to land management planning and need to be protected from disturbances that can release 

carbon, such as those that increase soil erosion or decomposition beyond inherent levels. We need to leverage 

opportunities to mitigate or limit overall carbon emissions in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems where fire-resiliency 

treatments are needed. 

Land management plan direction needs to better address the unintended consequences on aquatic systems, wildlife habitat 

and distribution, and invasive species from Forest Service roads and recreation infrastructure. Lack of direction affects the 

ecological integrity of national forests and grasslands.101

Work is needed to create more effective processes and to build trust and 

collaboration that could more successfully integrate adaptive management 

into land management plans. Adaptive management areas, a land use 

allocation in the NWFP, were designed to study new or experimental 

treatments to improve land management practices and incorporate 

results into future land management plan direction. Unfortunately, 

adaptive management areas were rarely used, and their goal wasn’t 

fully realized due to risk aversion and lack of acceptance102 by regulatory 

agencies, environmental groups, and the public about experimental 

design implementation, as well as insufficient funding.103

Fire and Fuels Management

In the past few decades, we have learned a lot about the benefits of wildfire on the landscape and the critical 

importance of fire in maintaining ecological integrity in fire-adapted ecosystems.104 At the same time, we have 

experienced some of the biggest and most impactful fire seasons in recent memory. Fire can be a destructive 

and devastating force, and it can also serve important ecological functions. As we have learned more about the 

effectiveness of fuels treatments and explored the benefits of using prescribed fire and natural wildfire, we better 

understand that fire helps to restore balance to national forests and grasslands. In the BioA area, ecological systems fall 

into three groups (figure 4-4) based on fire ecology characteristics.

Frequent-fire dependent ecosystems are those where 

fire is essential to overall ecosystem function. Before 

Euro-American settlement, fires were quite frequent and 

of low or mixed severity and were the primary driver of 

disturbance. Fire in these systems drives structural and 

successional dynamics, favoring fire-dependent and 

fire-adapted species. In these areas, we need to increase 

disturbance and modify conditions, where appropriate, to 

prevent uncharacteristically large and severe fires 

from occurring.

“Trust among interested parties is 

essential for developing adaptive 

management strategies that can nimbly 

and effectively respond to changing 

climate, species, disturbances, human 

values, and markets. ”

Spies and others 2018b

100 USDA Forest Service, 2015. figure 3-4. 101 Reeves and others, 2018. 102 Spies and others, 2018b. 103 Stankey and others, 2006. 104 Spies and others, 2018.
CHAPTER 4

page

56

Fire diverse (mixed-severity) ecosystems are those where fire can be important to ecosystem function, but it is not 

the primary driver of successional dynamics, including structure and composition. Historically, fires were moderately 

frequent and primarily ranged between mixed and high severity in a variety of patch sizes. There is a need on these 

landscapes to find places where naturally occurring wildfires can and should be managed for long-term 

resource benefit.

Fire infrequent ecosystems represent a broad range of ecosystem types from high-elevation spruce-fir forests to 

coastal temperate rainforests where fires were historically infrequent and of mixed to high severity in large areas. In 

these areas, naturally occurring fires need to be managed for ecological benefit without compromising firefighter or 

public safety; this can be particularly challenging in more populated coastal areas.

est

est

st

st

est

est

s

st

st

est

est

st

est

st

est

t

st

tes

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Frequent-fire Dependent Fire Diverse (mixed severity)

Mendocino

Lassen

Shasta-Trinity

Six Rivers 

Klamath

Ochoco

Rogue River-Siskiyou

Modoc

Fremont-Winema

Okanogan-Wenatchee 

Deschutes

Umpqua

Mt. Hood

Gifford Pinchot 

Willamette

Siuslaw

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie

Olympic

Fire Infrequent

National Forests

Figure 4-4—Percentage of fire ecological groups, based on historical fire regime, by national forest. No forest is all in one 

fire ecology group.

Olympic National For

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Fore

Siuslaw National Fores

Willamette National For

Gifford Pinchot National Fore

Mt. Hood National For

Umpqua National Fore

Deschutes National For

Okanogan-Wenatchee National For

Fremont-Winema National Fore

Modoc National Fore

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Ochoco National For

Klamath National For

Six Rivers National Fore

Shasta-Trinity National Fore

Lassen National For

Mendocino National For

Land management plans need to address strategic wildfire-risk mitigation in and around communities in the wildland-urban 

interface and around infrastructure. There’s been a dramatic increase in people living in the wildland-urban interface 

(figure 4-5).105 To ensure that fire management needs are supported, plan direction needs to be better aligned with 

today’s understanding of fire management and fire strategies, as well as with land management allocations. In addition 

to aggressively suppressing fires, modern strategies to protect communities should include reducing fuels through 

mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. When wildfires occur, they should be managed under specific and limited 

conditions to achieve risk-reduction objectives.

105 Charnley and others, 2018.
CHAPTER

4

page

57

Where People Live

Housing Units (HU)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

O R E G O N O R E G O N

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

More than 3 HU/acre 

1 HU/5 acres to 3 HU/acre

1 HU/20 acres to 1 HU/5 acres

Less than 1 HU/40 acres to

1 HU/20 acres

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N O R E G O N

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

More than 3 HU/acre 

1 HU/5 acres to 3 HU/acre

1 HU/20 acres to 1 HU/5 acres

Less than 1 HU/40 acres to

1 HU/20 acres

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

Figure 4-5 - Housing density in and 

near national forests and grasslands 

in the Bioregional Assessment area. 

Where people live is measured by 

housing units per acre.
CHAPTER 4

page

58

Better alignment of fire management objectives includes ensuring that land allocations support management activities 

that reduce risk around important assets, such as communications and energy infrastructure. There’s about 1,700 

miles of transmission lines on national forests and grasslands within the BioA area. These facilities often cross multiple 

national forest and grassland boundaries, as well as other municipal and private boundaries. Improved management 

consistency across the BioA, as well as alignment of plan direction, can help increase public safety and reduce fire risk 

concerns by improving agency responses to facility maintenance needs and system upgrade proposals.

A strategic risk-based approach to fire management and loss mitigation is needed to help reduce losses from 

unwanted wildfire and reduce the high cost of fire suppression in and near communities and other resources and 

assets.106 This approach would help ensure we are making progress toward the intent of the National Cohesive Wildland 

Fire Management Strategy. The Strategy is a broad national strategic framework that addresses wildland fire across 

landscapes as a vitally important natural ecological process. The subsequent report, The National Strategy, provides 

a path forward to address key issues associated with wildfire; create resilient landscapes by managing vegetation and 

fuel; create fire-adapted communities by treating hazardous vegetation to protect communities, infrastructure, and 

other highly valued resources and assets; and provide a safe and effective wildfire response by using a risk-management 

approach that includes all jurisdictions when developing a response plan. 

Land management plans need an improved focus on managing wildfires, acknowledging the important ecological role of 

fire in fire-adapted ecosystems, and promoting the use of unplanned ignitions to meet ecological and resource objectives.

Existing land management plans primarily focus on suppression rather than on fuels management, managing fires, and 

other tactics to help meet ecological and resource objectives. High-severity fire can alter important habitat, impact 

water quality, and create dangerous or even lethal conditions for rural communities. There has been an increase in 

high-severity wildfires in predominantly low-severity fire areas since our land management plans were written (figure 

4-6).107 We need to increase the pace and scale of work in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems to reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic effects from large-scale, stand-replacing fire using strategies in addition to aggressive fire 

suppression (figure 2-4). 

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0

Unburned to Low Low Moderate High

12

10

es

8

crf Alions o

6

ilM

4

2

0

Figure 4-6—Total annual acres burned by severity class on national forests and grasslands in the BioA area from 1985 to 2018. 

There is a widely variable nature of area burned and an apparent annual increase in burn area and regularity of fire. While the 

overall area burned each year remains below historic and natural levels, a noticeable increase in high- and moderate-severity 

fire has occurred since 1985, which helps explain how the perception of fire and fire risk was different when current land 

management plans were written.

106 Thompson and others, 2015. 107 Thompson and others, 2015.
CHAPTER

4

page

59

Land management plan direction is needed to facilitate the use of prescribed and natural fire, along with timber harvest 

and mechanical fuel treatments, to achieve desired conditions in fire-adapted ecosystems. Existing management 

direction, although consistent, is not compatible with desired conditions or natural disturbance ecology in the variety 

of ecosystems across the BioA area (figures 2-2 and 2-4). There’s a high proportion of densely stocked forests with 

highly flammable fuel on drier, frequent-fire dependent areas. Fires on these lands are often uncharacteristically severe 

and can have negative ecological impacts. Additionally, climate change is expected to expand uncharacteristic fire 

effects across the BioA area, especially in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems. Combining timber harvest, other 

mechanical fuel treatments, and prescribed or natural fire can achieve desired conditions where using only one 

option would not fully meet the landscape needs.

Sustainable Timber 

Timber processing infrastructure and a skilled workforce has declined in the BioA region in recent decades.108 Many rural 

communities in and around the BioA area that rely on federal timber and landscape restoration have been socially 

and economically affected by declines since the 1990s. Economically feasible restoration projects, timber processing 

infrastructure, and a skilled workforce are needed to support ecological integrity and benefits to communities in 

the region. 

The ability to implement restoration treatments on federal lands is influenced by several factors including the 

status of markets, sawmill facilities, and a capable workforce (figure 5-5). In turn, the types of restoration treatments 

implemented and products generated influence the viability of the infrastructure and the presence of a capable 

workforce. For timber production to function as a tool to meet ecological objectives, purchasers must be able to 

meet the requirements for minimum acceptable bid prices, use the offered wood material, and perform the required 

work. Therefore, it is difficult to rely on timber harvest to fund forest management and restoration on all but the most 

valuable timberlands.

Timber processing infrastructure and a skilled workforce are sparse in some locations, especially east of the Cascades. 

The number of mills has decreased regionally but those that remain have modernized and total wood processing 

capacity has increased.109 However, the average distance between large mills has grown to about 100 miles, resulting in 

an increased cost to transport logs to mills throughout much of the BioA area. 

108 Charnley and others, 2018. 109 Charnley and others, 2018.
CHAPTER 4

page

60

Timber harvest anticipated under the land management plans has never been met110 primarily because management direction 

restricts active management. As with limited timber processing infrastructure, timber harvest below projected levels 

restricts our ability to achieve restoration objectives and support communities. Harvest levels are unlikely to increase 

under current plans because the objectives for timber production and restoration often conflict with habitat 

protection objectives. For example, timber production is no longer emphasized on much of the NWFP matrix land 

because large areas of matrix have been designated as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (figures 4-7 and 4-8). 

Similar management conflicts exist in BioA forests outside the NWFP area. For example the Eastside Screens, which 

restrict commercial timber sale activities in late- and old-structural stages, restricts the diameter of trees harvested to 

less than 21 inches diameter at breast height. Another example is the requirement for 40 to 70 percent ungulate canopy 

cover in frequent-fire dependent forests that naturally have a more open canopy. 

Commercial thinning to restore historic plantations is generally only commercially viable every 30 to 50 years on the 

most productive sites; growth is slower in drier areas. So, restrictions on harvesting trees that are more than 80 years 

old mean that sustainable timber production will be more difficult for the next couple of decades. The challenge arises 

because areas available for restoration and commercial timber production will be thinned or have already been thinned 

within the last 30 years. This progression through time results in stands that are too old and trees that are too large to 

be commercially harvested under the restrictions in the land management plans.

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Late-successional Reserve

Matrix

Congressional Reserved

Adaptive Management

Administratively Withdrawn

10% 1%

4%

57%

27%

Figure 4-7. Designated critical habitat for northern spotted owl is most aligned with late-successional 

reserve, congressional reserves, and administratively withdrawn land allocations.

110 Charnley and others, 2018.
CHAPTER

4

page

61

0 mi 2.25 4.5 E 0 km 2.25 4.5

NWFP Land Use Allocations Riparian Management Areas Inventoried Roadless Areas

Adaptive Management Areas

Late Successional Reserve

Not Designated

Matrix

Northern Spotted Owl

Critical Habitat

Riparian Management Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas

NSO Critical Habitat

0 mi 2.25 4.5 E 0 km 2.25 4.5

NWFP Land Use Allocations Riparian Management Areas Inventoried Roadless 

Adaptive Management Areas

Late Successional Reserve

Not Designated

Matrix

Riparian Management Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas

NSO Critical Habitat

0 mi 0.75 1.5 E 0 0.75km 1.5

Figure 4-8—The land available for timber 

production under the NWFP is much 

less than what was left undesignated in 

NWFP matrix land. Plan direction and 

Inventoried Roadless Area designation 

often conflict with assumptions about 

timber production. Matrix was assumed 

to emphasize timber production, but 

timber production goals in matrix 

are superseded by more restrictive 

stipulations, such as minimum canopy 

cover requirements for ungulates and 

requirements for tree retention or limited 

tree stumps. Inventoried Roadless Areas 

limit timber harvest. Unmapped riparian 

reserve, survey and manage standards 

and guidelines, and northern spotted 

owl critical habitat designations create 

further complexity and unpredictability 

for timber production. And, northern 

spotted owl critical habitat designation 

has reduced the land base available for 

primary timber production.
CHAPTER 4

page

62

Projects that produce timber do not closely adhere to planned harvest methods like regeneration harvest of old 

forest in matrix lands. Existing land management plans don’t incorporate today’s harvest methods and technology, 

like variable density thinning and modern logging methods, or consider the mutual benefits of timber harvest and 

ecological resilience and integrity. Existing plans focus more on setting standards and guidelines for timber harvest 

than on working toward desired conditions. Such a focus can prevent leveraging a new technology that, for example, 

can harvest on steep slopes with little impact to soils. Timber outputs from our highly productive fire-infrequent and 

fire-diverse (mixed severity) lands have been particularly curtailed. However, social values related to land management 

have begun to shift toward recognition of the broad benefits associated with our natural resources and the importance 

of balancing resource protection with timber production.111

NWFP late-successional reserves and matrix are similar in their current need for disturbance restoration, which involves 

mechanical treatments, including timber harvest, in combination with fire treatments (figure 4-9). 

 -

 200,000

 400,000

 600,000

 800,000

 1,000,000

 1,200,000

 1,400,000

 1,600,000

 1,800,000

Adaptive Management Area Congressionally Reserved

or Administratively

Withdrawn

Late Successional Reserve Matrix

Millions of Acres

1.8

1.4

1.6

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Adaptive Management Area

8%

29%

Congressionally Reserved 

or Administrativly 

Withdrawn

32%

Late-successional Reserve

32%

Matrix

Figure 4-9—Millions of acres need some combination of mechanical or fire treatment to reduce density and 

restore forests (disturbance restoration need) in land use allocations including matrix, late-successional reserve, 

congressionally reserved and administratively withdrawn, and adaptive management areas. Percent of land use 

allocation needing disturbance restoration is indicated above each colored bar. Mechanical treatments to achieve 

restoration goals can often produce commercial timber as a co-product of improving ecological resilience. 

(Modified from Ringo and others 2019)

111 Charnley and others, 2018.
CHAPTER

4

page

63

Habitat Management

There is a need for land management plan direction that 

better aligns with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s northern 

spotted owl recovery plan112 (figure 2-7) and critical habitat 

final rule.113 Better alignment is needed between designated 

critical habitat for spotted owls and the late-successional 

old-growth portion of the late-successional reserve 

network; this could help simplify management direction 

and better protect high-quality habitat for owls and other 

old growth-dependent species, such as marbled murrelet. 

In addition to protecting these habitats, management 

direction that allows active management to restore and 

improve ecosystem resilience could help conserve and 

develop northern spotted owl habitat in the long term 

(chapter 4, Ecological Integrity). 

Modification of land management plan desired conditions 

associated with old-forest management in drier, frequentfire dependent ecosystems is needed. Loss of old forest from 

high-severity wildfire has been concentrated in frequent-fire 

dependent ecosystems (figure 3-2).114 It will be important 

to update land management plans to reflect ecological 

resilience and expected ecosystems in these areas.115 

Despite the protections afforded by the NWFP, old-growth 

dependent species, such as the northern spotted owl, continue 

to decline due to factors that weren’t anticipated.116 One of these factors is the barred owl, an invasive species in the BioA 

area, which has expanded its range in the past 25 years and become a more significant threat to northern spotted owls. 

The expansion of the barred owl’s range, in combination with disturbances outside of federal lands, have led scientists 

to conclude that the protections in the NWFP alone are not enough for spotted owl recovery.

Barred Owl Invasion

A threat to the northern spotted owl that was not anticipated by the NWFP is the invasion and establishment of a nonnative competitor. The barred owl, once confined to eastern North America, now co-occupies habitat and outnumbers 

spotted owls throughout much of their range 

and continues to increase in population 

density.117 Barred owls have higher annual 

survival, produce more offspring, and inhabit 

smaller home ranges than spotted owls. 

They compete for resources that would 

otherwise be available to spotted owls, 

including nest sites. They are slightly larger, 

and are strongly aggressive toward their 

native counterparts, usually quickly excluding 

spotted owls from territories and habitat. The 

competitive relationship between the two owl 

species has become a key limiting factor to 

spotted owl recovery (figure 4-10). 

0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

Cle Elum Olympic Coast

Ranges

H.J.

Andrews

Tyee Klamath South

Cascades,

Oregon

Northwest

California

Local extinction rate

Study Area

with barred owls

without barred owls

Figure 4-10—Mean annual local extinction rates for northern spotted owl 

on 11 study areas relative to presence of barred owls.118 Northern spotted 

owls are more at risk of extinction when barred owls are living in the area. 

After Dugger and others 2016

Northern Spotted Owl 

The historic range of the 

northern spotted owl stretches 

f r o m s o u t h w e s t B r i t i s h 

Columbia through the Cascade 

Mountains and coastal ranges 

in Washington, Oregon, and 

northern California. A key component of northern 

spotted owl habitat is structurally complex old-growth 

forests, especially for nesting and roosting. Early seral 

habitat (for example, openings) is also important, 

especially in the drier portions of the northern spotted 

owl’s range.

The Northwest Forest Plan and the Endangered Species 

Act have helped protect and enhance spotted owl 

habitat on federal lands, but habitat protection will not 

be enough to ensure long-term viability of the species 

(Lesmeister and others 2018). 

Despite current protections, the species’ population 

continues to decline each year throughout its range. 

These declines are thought to be driven by continued 

reduction of nesting and roosting habitat, particularly on 

nonfederal lands, increasing habitat loss from wildfires, 

and competition with expanding populations of barred 

owls. Climate change projections indicate that suitable 

habitat for spotted owls will shift northward and to 

higher elevations. 

“It appears unlikely that spotted owls can 

persist without significant reductions in 

barred owl polulations.” 

Spies and others 2018-

NWFP Science Synthesis

112 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a.

113 Spies and others, 2018b. 114 Spies and others, 2018a. 115 Spies and others, 2018a. 116 Lesmeister and others, 2018. 117 Lesmeister and others, 2018. p. 259. 118 Dugger and others, 2016.
CHAPTER 4

page

64

Conservation of qualifying survey and manage species should be screened to determine if they should be transitioned to at-risk 

species of conservation concern. The survey and manage standards and guidelines need modernization to be consistent 

with and complement the 2012 planning rule and a coarse filter species conservation approach. Complexity of direction 

has made it difficult to conduct the annual species review, which is required as part of adaptive management under 

the survey and manage standards and guidelines. Therefore, changing the status of species has not occurred since 

2003. Complex and lengthy survey protocols and requirements for managing known sites have been obstacles to 

some land management and restoration objectives. Additionally, the survey and manage standards and guidelines 

require region-wide periodic strategic surveys to update the program’s species list and make changes to management 

recommendations. These survey protocols are costly and have not been conducted as intended.

Managing aquatic and riparian ecosystems in the BioA area under the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, Sierra Nevada 

Framework Aquatic Management Strategy, and PACFISH and INFISH strategies needs to be integrated under a single 

management approach. Management under these strategies has created conflicts and increased Forest Service planning 

costs. For example, in some planning areas both PACFISH and the NWFP apply; therefore, it’s necessary to meet 

consultation, reporting, and analysis requirements for both sets of management direction. 

Land management plan direction is needed that improves management of riparian areas by consolidating existing 

information to better describe desired conditions. Some direction under the NWFP Aquatic Conservation Strategy, Sierra 

Nevada Framework, and PACFISH and INFISH strategies, while consistent, does not adequately describe the diversity 

of riparian area in the BioA area. 

Adjust key watershed locations to consider science since 1994. Information to consider includes designated critical habitat 

for ESA-listed fish, high-intrinsic potential assessments, bull trout core areas, climate change vulnerability assessments, 

presence of vulnerable non ESA-listed aquatic species, and refuge areas for ESA-listed aquatic species identified in 

federal recovery plans.

Land management plan direction needs to consider the requirements of complex early-seral habitats, meadows, and other 

types of habitat. Oversimplification of the landscape, often through management practices such as fire suppression, 

historic clear cutting, or focus on old-forest development, has resulted in reduced habitat diversity in the BioA area.119

Additionally, the habitat needs of broad-ranging species, such as marten, fisher, wolverine and other mammalian 

carnivores, are not adequately addressed within land management plan objectives.

119 Spies and others, 2018a.
CHAPTER

4

page

65

Sustainable Recreation

There is a need for land management plan direction that sustains recreation opportunities considering increasing use and the 

need to maintain existing developed recreation sites. The 2012 planning rule specifies that land management plans include 

direction for sustainable recreation defined as the set of recreation settings and opportunities on national forests and 

grasslands that are ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable for present and future generations.120 Existing 

land management plans did not anticipate the significant increase in recreation demand from a growing population121 

nor the advances in recreation technology that have occurred in the past few decades. 

Land management plans need proactive direction to address the potential effects of climate change and other landscapealtering events on recreation and its infrastructure. Sustainable recreation depends on availability of activities and 

facilities. A changing climate might result in less snow at lower elevations, which would reduce the geographical extent 

and length of the winter-sport season. Increased flooding could affect trails, roads, campgrounds, boat launches, and 

other infrastructure that supports recreation-related services and benefits. Uncharacteristically severe fires, insects and 

disease impact recreation through direct damage or destruction of infrastructure, reduced air, water, and visual quality, 

and decreased safety. Land management plan direction needs to address the connection between resilient landscapes 

and sustainable recreation and prioritize when and how management activities apply to desired conditions related 

to recreation.

Recreation management direction needs overall cohesion and consistency within and across the 19 national forests and 

grasslands in the BioA area to effectively and efficiently sustain recreation opportunities. Updated plans need to address 

inconsistencies between current direction and objectives for sustainable recreation; this is particularly needed within 

NWFP riparian settings where recreational use conflicts with Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Many national 

forests and grasslands in the BioA area have outdated recreation opportunity spectrum and scenery management 

system inventories that don’t reflect current recreation uses and patterns of use. Updated mapping techniques 

combined with findings from monitoring and other methods to determine existing and desired recreation opportunities 

would help planners identify desired conditions and develop consistent recreation direction where uses cross 

administrative boundaries. 

120 36 CFR 219.19. 121 Charnley and others, 2018.
CHAPTER 4

page

66

Conclusion

This chapter supports the 10 key recommendations presented in chapter 2. In this chapter, we acknowledged that 

there have been management challenges, and we talked about the potential opportunities for change. In chapter 5, 

we’ll show you where urgent management challenges exist across multiple national forests and grasslands in the BioA 

area and discuss how the opportunities for change vary across the landscape. Chapter 5 geographically shows where 

consistent management direction has been working well and highlights where different management direction would 

be appropriate.

At a Glance

BioA area Treatment Needs

2 million acres

have plan direction that emphasizes timber production and these 

acres need active management to reduce susceptibility to insects 

and disease.

5 million acres 

i

c

n old-growth forest, ungulate cover, wildlife habitat, and scenic 

orridors have multiple plan objectives that inhibit active 

management to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease.

7 million acres 

need disturbance restoration

10 million acres

need some type of 

restoration treatment

18 million acres 

lack structural diversity and resilience and do not adequately contribute to ecological integrity 

Above graphic totals more than the 24 million acres that compromise the BioA area because some areas have multiple treatment 

needs, while others have no treatment needs.
CHAPTER

5

page

67

Chapter 5

Geographic Considerations

The NWFP, PACFISH, INFISH and Sierra Nevada Framework all address challenges at the landscape scale by providing 

consistent management direction across multiple national forests and grasslands. As the BioA shows, we’ve learned 

that we need to refine and better align management direction so that it’s compatible with unique ecosystems, 

while still being consistent at the appropriate scale. Chapter 5, like chapters 3 and 4, provides context to the 10 key 

recommendations highlighted in chapter 2.

Across the 19 national forests and grasslands in the BioA area, there are ecological and social similarities as well as 

differences and many unique opportunities to modernize the existing land management plans. We’ve learned that some 

land management plans are working better in some locations than in others, and some areas have a more critical need 

for modernization than others. 

In chapter 5, we geographically illustrate patterns and trends across the BioA landscape. Some of the patterns and 

trends have a shared urgency, while others have a need for consistent management. The patterns and trends vary in 

scale, but they are all larger than one or two national forests or grasslands. 

Table 5-1 is a snapshot—an innovative look and an attempt to be as transparent as possible right from the get-go—of 

broad-scale generalizations about management challenges and opportunities across each of the 19 national forests 

and grasslands in the BioA area. Keep in mind that the table is not an in-depth quantitative analysis; such analysis will 

come during future planning 

phases. Instead, table 5-1 is a 

qualitative appraisal that reveals 

some interesting patterns and 

trends, which we discuss in 

more detail in the chapter. We 

hope that table 5-1 will open 

a door and provide a starting 

place for future engagement 

with our communities and 

stakeholders as we move toward 

modernization of the land 

management plans in the 

BioA area.
CHAPTER 4

page

68

page

68CHAPTER

5

Snapshot of Urgent Management Challenges and Opportunities

“Urgent," as used in this table and chapter, means that the issue might be critical on a particular forest or grassland and 

there might be a risk of loss if action is not taken in a timely manner.

e 

p

n

m

ci

d

a

ge

ag

e 

ty

1. National forests that depend on frequent fire have a greater need for

disturbance restoration (such as mechanical and fire treatments) because

fire has been excluded for much longer than what they historically experienced.

These forests are overly dense and lack resiliency (pages 69-70).

2. Due to decades of fire exclusion and ongoing

climate change, national forests and grasslands

that rarely experienced large, high severity 

fires in the past might now have large fires on

a regular basis, which could negatively impact

late-successional habitat (pages 71-72 and 76

and figure 5-8).

3. Climate change will impact all national

forests and grasslands in the BioA area but

those with greater extremes and drier climates

will likely experience greater effects

(pages 70-71).

4. Some national forests in the BioA area have

more potential to retain stored carbon because

of their climate, vegetation, and fire frequency

and intensity. Forests and grasslands with

wetter year-around climates that infrequently

experience fire have more potential to keep

stored carbon. Seasonally dry areas that

depend on frequent fires lose carbon more

often (page 47, 70).

5. The land management plans signed in the 1980s

and amended by the NWFP, PACFISH, INFISH,

and Sierra Nevada Framework include projected

timber volume outputs. Some national forests

have met the projected outputs while others

haven’t. Although these volume projections

are now more than 25 years old, its important

to show the gap between projected and actual

outputs (pages 73-74).

6. On some national forests the need for

restoration is greater due to the type of

vegetation, fire frequency and intensity, past

disturbances, and past management actions.

When there’s also less access to sawmills 

to produce the product and markets to buy the

product, these forests experience additional

challenges to meeting their restoration

needs (page 73).

7. Recreation is common on national forests and

grasslands in the BioA area. Areas close to

population centers generally experience high

levels of recreation use and visitation and

have more associated management challenges

that will need to be addressed in the land

management plans (page 77).

ee

2. Large, high 

severity fire im

3. Climate cha

4. Carbon stor

potential

5. Timber volu

6. Sawmill scar

7. Recreation 

use challenges

Umpqua

Olympic

s 

s

t

d Disturbanc

toration n

1. 

res

Snoqualmie

OkanoganWenatchee

Mount BakerNational Fores

and Grasslan

Gifford 

cts

e 

ga

Low Medium

Pinchot

Columbia 

River Gorge

Mt. Hood

Siuslaw

Willamette

Deschutes

Ochoco and 

Crooked 

River

FremontWinema

Rogue River -

Siskiyou

Six Rivers

Klamath

Modoc

Lassen

Shasta -

Trinity

Mendocino

High

p

Table 5-1—A snapshot of broad-scale generalizations about critical management 

challenges and opportunities to change planning direction on the 19 national 

forests and grasslands in the BioA area. The table indicates where an issue 

has less, mid, or more urgency on a specific national forest or grassland and, 

in doing so, the table displays multi-unit landscape patterns that require 

management attention in a timely manner.
CHAPTER

5

page

69

Ecological Integrity

Frequent-fire dependent ecosystems—those that are farthest from resilient conditions—occur throughout the BioA 

area but are most prevalent on east Cascades slopes and foothills and in the Klamath Mountains/California High North 

Coast Range ecoregions.122 We determined the areas of less resilient conditions by comparing current forest structure 

with what was found historically123 (figure 4-1). And, we identified two broad groups of restoration types that would be 

beneficial throughout the BioA area: disturbance restoration, such as mechanical and fire treatments (figure 4-1A), and 

succession restoration, such as enhanced tree growth and snag development (figure 4-1B). Both types of restoration are 

needed (figure 5-1). The Okanogan-Wenatchee, Shasta-Trinity, and Fremont-Winema National Forests are examples of 

where this complex restoration is more urgently needed. 

There is a heightened risk of loss in forests needing disturbance restoration in comparison to those needing primarily 

succession restoration; therefore, disturbance restoration is an urgent need. Forests that need mechanical and fire 

treatments tend to be overly dense and are places where past fire exclusion deprived these systems of multiple 

important disturbance cycles (figure 2-5). If these forests are not restored, the next fire, or some other disturbance 

event, might move the ecosystem toward an undesirable, and potentially unstable condition (figure 2-1). Disturbance 

restoration is evenly needed throughout the NWFP land use allocations (figure 4-9), yet the urgency of the need varies 

by national forest or grassland (table 5-1 and figure 5-1) and limiting the overall carbon emissions through fire resiliency 

treatments in frequent-fire dependent and fire diverse (mixed-severity) ecosystem.124

Figure 5-1—Total acres of restoration need by national forest.125 All land designations including congressionally 

reserved areas, late-successional reserves, riparian reserves, matrix, and lands outside the NWFP area. Forests that 

depend on frequent fire have more restoration need.

 -

o

o

et

ci

s

h

ut

a

ve

d

q

m

p

la

o

c

t

n

e

o

e

t

r

o

u

i

i

d

o

e

o

n

t 

s

h

o

s

c

m

i

o

p

l

m

s

H

a

h

a

y

em

t. 

-Trinit

Oc

lam

iski

in

d

L

Pin

sc

la

 R

M

m

u

ly

Siu

y

M

Shasta

Wil

Rogue River-S

Fremont-W

Men

Gifford 

De

K

Six

U

Mt. Baker-Snoq

O

Okanogan-Wenatchee 

 200,000.00 400,0

Approximate Acres of Current Restoration Need

Mechanical and/or Fir

Treatments and Successi

Restoration Needed

e

on 

Mechanical and/or Fire 

Treatments Needed

Succession Restoration 

Needed

00.00 600,000.00 800,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00

National Forests

ou

a

h

 1,400,000.00

122 Level III ecoregions of the continental United States: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states. 123 Ringo and others, 2019. 124 Spies and others, 2018. 125 Ringo and others, 2019.

s 

c

a

e

c

w
CHAPTER 4

page

70

page

70CHAPTER

5

 800,000

Frequent-Fire Fire Diverse Fire

Dependent (mixed severity) Infrequent

 700,000

 600,000

 500,000

 400,000

 300,000

 200,000

 100,000

 -

w

ic

a

ual

ci

ym

c

m

lame

inc

chu

rin

o

iv

il

d P

endo

ix R

T

Mt. H

U

aSiski

mp

enat

Siusl

Ol

la

oq

es

K

D

S

-

n-S

W

or

M

W

er

iff

iv

er

G

anShast

akB

ue R

. t

kanog

og

M

O

R

National Forests

mie

e

t 

t

o

od

ua

es

no

ee 

rs 

p

t

h

t

h

ath

e

ity

q

ouy

esveres essional Rce-suctLaf es oAcr

Late-successional reserves need management that is compatible with the diverse landscapes across the BioA area 

(chapter 2, Recommendation 1), while also being managed consistently for planning efficiency and implementation 

effectiveness. One of the key components of diverse landscapes is fire ecology.126 Using the fire ecology groups—

frequent-fire dependent, fire diverse (mixed severity), and fire infrequent—described in chapter 4 would provide a 

consistent management approach for future late-successional reserve (figure 5-2). 

Figure 5-2—Acres of late-successional reserve in each fire ecology group (frequent-fire dependent, fire diverse (mixed severity), and 

fire infrequent) by national forests in the BioA area. Only forests with more than 100,000 acres of late-successional reserves are 

displayed. Consistent management of late-successional reserves is needed in forests with similar fire ecology. The Rogue RiverSiskiyou, Shasta-Trinity, Six Rivers, Klamath, Okanogan-Wenatchee, Mendocino, and Deschutes National Forests all have more than 

100,000 acres of late-successional reserves in the frequent-fire dependent ecosystem group. Source: Morelli and others (2016). 

After Spies and others 2018.

Carbon storage is an ecosystem service provided by healthy forests. The potential for carbon sequestration in the 

BioA area is greatest in coast-range forests, such as the Siuslaw, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, and Olympic National Forests, 

due to their high productivity and low fire frequency. The greatest potential for mitigating emissions and limiting 

the overall losses through fire resiliency treatments is in frequent-fire dependent and fire diverse (mixed-severity) 

ecosystems (figure 5-2).

The effects of climate change, such as increased temperatures, drier summers, and wetter winter storms, will likely be 

most pronounced in the southern portion of the BioA area (northern California and southern Oregon) and in the drier 

forested and non-forested types (eastern Cascades) (figure 5-3).127 Climate change effects will also be pronounced in 

high-elevation forests where effects, such as loss of snow pack and warming, can change ecosystems.

126 Spies and others, 2018. 127 Reilly and others, 2018.
CHAPTER

5

page

71

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N

I A

E

Ecoregion Boundary

Moderate Climate Change Vulnerability

0 mi 50 100

0km 50 100

High Climate Change Vulnerability

BioA Boundary

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

E

Ecoregion Boundary

Moderate Climate Change Vulnerability

0 mi 50 100

0km 50 100

High Climate Change Vulnerability

BioA Boundary

Figure 5-3—General level of effects of a changing 

climate on the BioA area. Areas where temperatures 

are already high and precipitation is already low and 

more seasonally split (in gray) are somewhat more 

affected by projected changes in climate, such as 

increased temperature and changes in precipitation 

patterns (wetter winters and drier summers).

Fire and Fuels

There is an urgency to address ecological conditions in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems that are outside of what 

would be expected for such an ecosystem. Identification of fire ecology groups provides a framework where consistent 

management approaches would be most effective for national forests and grasslands in the BioA area. The drier forest 

types (frequent-fire dependent) of northern California, southern Oregon, and the eastern Cascades128 (figures 2-4 and 

4-4) have the greatest increases in burn area; this trend is expected to continue. Most studies project little increase in 

fire activity in the moist maritime forests (fire infrequent); for example, Sitka spruce, redwood, and western hemlock 

forests129 (figure 2-4). 

Forests with many frequent-fire dependent ecosystems would benefit the most from adjustment to prescribed fire and 

wildfire management direction. All forests would benefit, to some degree, from direction to address the lack of fire on 

the landscape.

There is a lack of fire on the landscape even with current prescribed fire management activities (figure 2-5). Forests 

with the greatest gap have the greatest lack of fire and are most in need of updated land management plan direction to 

better enable fuel treatments for landscape ecological restoration. 

128 Reilly and others, 2018. 129 Reilly and others, 2018.
CHAPTER 4

page

72

page

72CHAPTER

5

Using quantitative wildfire-risk assessments (figure 5-4) addresses fire-risk management around communities and helps 

focus on the areas of greatest urgency. Assessments, when complete for California, can be used to evaluate overall 

priorities and urgency to focus management direction on community risk.130

Top 50 Communities 

by State

Communities

Burn Probability 

Figure 5-4—An example of quantitative wildfire-risk assessment. Annual burn probability in 

Washington and Oregon and exposed human communities in each state. The 50 most exposed 

communities in Oregon and Washington, based on annual burn probability, are in dark red.131 A 

similar assessment is being drafted for California and will display similar data to highlight risks 

to communities and to conduct large-scale risk assessments. Source: Scott and others 2018 

130 Gilbertson-Day and others, 2018. 131 Gilbertson-Day and others, 2018.
CHAPTER

5

page

73

Sustainable Timber 

Providing a predictable and sustainable timber supply is a core component of the Forest Service mission. Today, much 

of our timber volume is a product of restoration and resiliency projects, which are urgently needed (figure 4-1). Most of 

the current restoration need is in forests dominated by frequent-fire dependent ecosystems (figure 5-1, figure 4-4). 

How timber is harvested and where it comes from today is very different from how and where is was projected to 

come from when the NWFP was signed. The land management plans on the Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Hood, Willamette, 

and Umpqua National Forests projected the highest timber outputs under the NWFP. Today, these forests have the 

biggest gap between timber actually produced and what was projected in the NWFP. The actual timber output doesn’t 

accurately reflect potential productivity because we know that these are highly productive timber forests.

The number of local timber processing facilities has decreased in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. 

Although total processing capacity has increased in Washington and remains constant in Oregon,132 the cost of 

transporting harvested timber to mills has increased 

in areas with limited remaining infrastructure.133 This is 

particularly true east of the Cascade Range and in the 

southern Coast range (figure 5-5) where restoration needs 

in frequent-fire dependent ecosystems are critical.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L I F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Sawmill Location

Disturbance Restoration 

Need by Watershed

0-15%

15-30%

30-45%

45-70%

!( Smaller Facilities

!( Medium Facilities

!( Larger Facilities

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Sawmill Location

Disturbance Restoration 

Need by Watershed

0-15%

15-30%

30-45%

45-70%

!( Smaller Facilities

!( Medium Facilities

!( Larger Facilities

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

Sawmill Location 

Disturbance Restoration 

Need by Watershed

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Sawmill Location

Disturbance Restoration 

Need by Watershed

0-15%

15-30%

30-45%

45-70%

!( Smaller Facilities

!( Medium Facilities

!( Larger Facilities

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

National Forests and Grasslands

(Outside the BioA area)

BioA Boundary

Figure 5-5—A workforce is needed to 

implement restoration treatments on federal 

lands as well as having sawmills to produce 

the product and markets to buy the product. 

In turn, the types of restoration treatments and 

products produced influence the viability of both 

the sawmills and presence of a workforce. Source: 

Forest Industry Research Program, Harvest and 

Industry Data, University of Montana, May 2019.

132 Charnley and others, 2018. 133 Charnley and others, 2018.
CHAPTER 4

page

74

page

74CHAPTER

5

Conflicting management direction related to northern spotted owl designated critical habitat affects anticipated 

timber harvest. The overlap of critical habitat designation (chapter 4, Sustainable Timber) is least aligned with latesuccessional reserves on the Mt. Hood, Umpqua, Six Rivers, Willamette, Klamath, Okanogan-Wenatchee, Shasta-Trinity, 

Gifford Pinchot, and Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests (figure 5-6). These forests have the greatest urgency to 

modernize land management plan direction to better align designated critical habitat with late-successional reserves. 

Better realignment of the late-successional reserve network with critical habitat could adjust the matrix lands available 

for ecological treatments, which might provide additional timber outputs.

Late-successional

Matrix

Adaptive 

Management

National Forests

Percent of NSO Designated Critical Habitat

Figure 5-6—Northern spotted owl designated critical habitat overlaps with plan management direction differently 

on each national forest. On some forests there is a more urgent need to align critical habitat with late-successional 

reserves. Consistency in critical habitat management is needed between adjacent forests, especially when fire ecology 

is similar. Critical habitat designations are least aligned with late-successional reserves on the Mt. Hood, Umpqua, Six 

Rivers, Willamette, Klamath, Okanogan-Wenatchee, Shasta-Trinity, Gifford Pinchot, and Rouge River-Siskiyou National 

Forests, where there is less than 60 percent alignment for critical habitat in non-Wilderness reserves. 

Habitat Management

Addressing old-forest habitat management for the northern spotted owl across the BioA area requires considering 

different ecological conditions, while working toward a level of consistency to help ensure planning effectiveness and 

implementation efficiency. Consistency would relate 

to the fire ecology of the landscape. For example, drier 

frequent-fire dependent ecosystems would benefit 

from habitat direction different from fire diverse (mixed 

severity) and fire infrequent ecosystems. However, 

planning efficiencies would still be gained through 

consistent direction within each fire ecology group 

(figures 4-4 and 5-7). Consistent habitat direction, 

appropriate for the ecosystem, could help national forests 

and grasslands meet the recovery actions highlighted in 

the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet recovery 

plans (for example, northern spotted owl recovery action 

10 and 32).134 Similarly, consistent management direction 

for aquatic and riparian conservation is recommended 

across the BioA area to meet the needs of broad ranging 

aquatic species and to increase planning efficiency and 

implementation effectiveness.

134 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a.
CHAPTER

5

page

75

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N O R E G O N

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Fire Ecology Groups

NSO Critical Habitat

Fire Dependent

Fire Diverse

Fire Infrequent

Other

BioA Boundary

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Fire Ecology Groups

NSO Critical Habitat

Fire Dependent

Fire Diverse

Fire Infrequent

Other

BioA Boundary

Figure 5-7—Fire ecology groups in the BioA area with 

northern spotted owl critical habitat overlaid. In areas 

of frequent-fire dependent ecosystems there is a challenge 

between providing forest structure suitable for nesting and 

roosting cover and the risk of habitat loss from high-severity 

fire. Habitat in fire diverse (mixed-severity) ecosystems will 

increasingly be challenged under a changing climate.
CHAPTER 4

page

76

page

76CHAPTER

5

Active management is urgently needed to manage ecological integrity and wildlife habitat, as highlighted by the 

large fire potential in late-successional reserves and congressionally reserved land allocations (chapter 5, Fire and Fuels, 

figure 5-8). Some areas in northern California and eastern Oregon experience wildfires that are uncharacteristically 

large. It is projected that more fire diverse (mixed severity) areas will experience large fires in the future, which could 

have negative impacts on late-successional habitat (figure 5-8).

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Sacramento

San Francisco

Reno

Eugene Bend

Medford

Portland

Salem

Olympia

Seattle

0 mi 50 100

E 0km50 100 !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

Relative Change in

Fire Suitability, 1980-2100

High

Low

Fire Suitability, 1980 Fire Suitability, 2100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

Moderate

Low

High

BioA Boundary

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Sacramento

San Francisco

Reno

Eugene Bend

Medford

Portland

Salem

Olympia

Seattle

0 mi 50 100

E 0km50 100 !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

Relative Change in

Fire Suitability, 1980-2100

High

Low

Fire Suitability, 1980 Fire Suitability, 2100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

Moderate

Low

High

BioA Boundary

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Sacramento

San Francisco

Reno

Eugene Bend

Medford

Portland

Salem

Olympia

Seattle

0 mi 50 100

E 0km50 100 !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

Relative Change in

Fire Suitability, 1980-2100

High

Low

Fire Suitability, 1980 Fire Suitability, 2100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

Moderate

Low

High

BioA Boundary

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Sacramento

San Francisco

Reno

Eugene Bend

Medford

Portland

Salem

Olympia

Seattle

0 mi 50 100

E 0km50 100 !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

Rel

Fire 

Fire Suitability, 1980 Fire Suitability, 2100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

Moderate

Low

High

BioA Boundary

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Sacramento

San Francisco

Reno

Eugene Bend

Medford

Portland

Salem

Olympia

Seattle

0 mi 50 100

E 0km50 100 !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Bend

Reno

Salem

Eugene

Seattle

Olympia

Medford

Portland

Sacramento

San Francisco

Relative Change in

Fire Suitability, 1980-2100

High

Low

Fire Suitability, 1980 Fire Suitability, 2100

National Forests and Grasslands

(Within the BioA area)

Moderate

Low

High

BioA Boundary

Figure 5-8—With a changing climate some forests will become increasingly prone to large fires. This shift will put reserve areas 

and associated habitat at risk of large stand-replacing fire. Developing vegetation management direction and desired conditions 

that are informed by climate change to sustain higher levels of ecological function, reduce risk, and create options for resilient 

ecological pathways will be important for these forests.135

135 Adapted from Davis and others, 2017.
CHAPTER

5

page

77

Sustainable Recreation

Providing consistent land management plan direction for recreation will help avoid confusion and frustration related 

to conflicting direction. The amount and type of visitor use varies across the BioA area, with high levels around 

metropolitan areas (figure 5-9). Additional assessment of how people use the national forests and grasslands will help 

to highlight where there is a need for consistency in land management plan direction. The data can be used to develop 

land management plan direction and monitoring strategies that consider the need for consistency, where appropriate, 

as well as the unique characteristics of recreation landscapes across the BioA area. 

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Spokane Seattle

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Olympia

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 km 50 100

Low Visitation

Moderate Visitation

High Visitation

BioA Boundary

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Portland

Eugene Bend

Medford

Reno

Sacramento

San Francisco

Salem

Eureka

Alturas

Redding

Willows

O R E G O N O R E G O N

N E V A D A N E V A D A

C A L

I

F

O

R N

I A

0 mi 50 100 E 0 10050km

Low Visitation

Moderate Visitation

High Visitation

BioA Boundary

Figure 5-9—Forests located near metropolitan areas are most 

likely to face challenges related to increasing recreational use, 

changing user demographics, diverse populations, and recreation 

activity related to new and emerging technologies. Identifying 

recreation emphasis areas for new user opportunities, adding 

consistent recreation plan components to address new activities, 

and adding recreation special use permitting opportunities, 

while addressing user safety and protecting cultural and natural 

resources, can help to address the changing demands.
CHAPTER 4

page

78

page

78CHAPTER

5

Roads and trails across national forests and grasslands are an important aspect of recreation and provide the Forest 

Service with access to conduct work on the ground, including fire and fuels management. The National Forest Road 

System varies by national forest and grassland (figure 5-10), as does its impacts on ecological integrity and terrestrial 

and aquatic wildlife and plants. Because existing Forest Service direction adequately addresses most road-related 

concerns, road management is not a primary driver in the need to modernize land management direction. However, 

when a road crosses from one national forest or grassland to another, consistent management direction is needed to 

efficiently serve communities and conduct management.

Mendocino

Lassen Level 1 (Storage)

Shasta-Trinity

Modoc

Level 2 (High Clearance) Klamath

ests

Six Rivers

Rogue River-Siskyou Level 3-5 (Passenger Car)

ortional F

Fremont-Winema

Umpqua

Ochoco & Crooked River NG

Deschutes

Na

Willamette

Siuslaw

Mt. Hood

Gifford Pinchot

Olympic

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie

Okanogan-Wenatchee

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Miles

Figure 5-10—Road density and maintenance levels vary widely and, while not directly correlated, provide an indication of the 

maintenance backlog and needs along with access to a given area. Stored roads are not open to the public and receive no 

regular maintenance; high-clearance roads are open yet receive minimal maintenance, typically only to address road failures 

and resource concerns (for example, drainage and erosion control); and passenger car roads are open, can be gravel to 

pavement, and are intended to receive regular scheduled maintenance.

The impacts of climate change on recreation and Forest Service roads and trails exist across the entire BioA area, from 

increased flooding in more northern areas and to tree fall from increased wildfires in northern California, southwest 

Oregon, and the eastern Cascades (figure 5-3). Climate change has impacted and will continue to impact the delivery of 

abundant and safe recreational opportunities on national forests and grasslands in the BioA area.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we weighed the geographic urgency of various management challenges and opportunities for change 

and discussed the value of management consistency across the BioA area. We identified some management issues that 

would benefit from consistent direction across the BioA area and some management challenges and opportunities 

for change that aren’t equal in geographic scope or urgency. To best address and improve how we meet the needs of 

the socially, economically, and ecologically diverse BioA landscape, the Forest Service will consider the full spectrum 

of policy and regulatory options available to make management decisions as we engage with Tribes, states, local 

governments, stakeholders, and the public. Next, you’ll read about how your participation will help guide the Forest 

Service to develop land management plans that improve how we meet public needs while maintaining ecological 

sustainability on our national forests and grasslands in the BioA area. 
NEXT STEPS

page

79

Next Steps 

How to Stay Involved

The BioA will guide the Forest Service in making strategic decisions about what needs to change in existing land 

management plans as well as the sequence and timing for modernizing them through amendments or revisions. Using 

the five broad management categories that we developed in the BioA—ecological integrity, fire and fuels, sustainable 

timber, habitat management, and sustainable recreation—the Forest Service will move into the next phase of the land 

management planning process for the 19 national forests and grasslands in the BioA area. We know that effective public 

engagement depends on meeting people where they are, talking with them about what they care about, and making 

connections to how their public lands provide the multiple benefits that society and their communities seek. 

Following the release of the BioA, we’ll begin Tribal and public engagement in Washington, Oregon, and California to 

ensure that we identify and understand issues and opportunities important to the communities that we serve before 

any formal plan revision or amendment efforts. We’ll share information about the public engagement opportunities on 

the NWFP web page, and go to GovDelivery to sign up to receive email updates about how to stay involved and join the 

conversation. 

Our 2012 planning rule supports and encourages productive working relationships between the Forest Service 

and diverse communities, including youth, low-income, and minority populations, and stakeholders, Tribes, and 

other governments by providing “. . . for a transparent, collaborative process that allows for effective participation” 

throughout the entire land management planning process. For several years after finalization of the current 

planning rule, a small committee136 of public, state- and local-elected officials, Tribes, and youth provided advice and 

recommendation on implementation 

of the planning rule. This same 

committee developed the Citizens 

Guide to National Forest Planning. 

In this spirit, we are committed to a 

participatory collaborative process 

to accomplish modernization of the 

existing land management plans. The 

collaborative effort will bring diverse 

interests together to explore critical 

issues and provide meaningful input 

to our decision process. 

In an open, inclusive, and receptive 

environment, we’ll address 

challenging complex issues on 

a broad scale, create shared 

responsibility and understanding, 

and build working relationships, 

trust, and capacity. With your 

participation, we’ll develop land 

management plans that meet public 

needs and protect natural resources 

now and into the future. 

136 National Advisory Committee for Implementation of the National Forest System Land Management Planning Rule. (https://www.fs.usda.

gov/main/planningrule/committee) 
page

80GLOSSARY

Glossary

This glossary is adapted from the Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area (Science Synthesis) to 

ensure consistency of language between the Science Synthesis and the Bioregional Assessment and help readers understand various terms used 

in this document.

Sources include the Forest Service Handbook (FSH), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), executive orders, the Federal Register (FR), and 

various scientific publications. The authors have added working definitions of terms used in the synthesis and its source materials, especially 

when formal definitions might be lacking or when they differ across sources.

active management—Direct interventions to achieve desired outcomes, which may include harvesting and planting of vegetation and the 

intentional use of fire, among other activities.

adaptive management—A structured, cyclical process for planning and decision-making in the face of uncertainty and changing conditions 

with feedback from monitoring, which includes using the planning process to actively test assumptions, track relevant conditions over time, and 

measure management effectiveness (FSH 1909.12.5). Additionally, adaptive management includes iterative decision-making, through which results 

are evaluated and actions are adjusted based on what has been learned.

adaptive management area (AMA)—A portion of the federal land area within the NWFP area that was specifically allocated for scientific 

monitoring and research to explore new forestry methods and other activities related to meeting the goals and objectives of the Plan. Ten AMAs 

were established in the NWFP area, covering about 1.5 million ac (600,000 ha), or 6 percent of the planning area (Stankey and others 2003).

ancestral lands (of American Indian Tribes)—Lands that historically were inhabited by the ancestors of American Indian tribes.

annual species review—A procedure established under the NWFP in which panels of managers and biologists evaluate new scientific and 

monitoring information on species to potentially support the recommendation of changes in their conservation status.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)— A regional strategy that uses an ecosystem approach to manage and protect riparian and aquatic 

habitats across the broad landscapes of lands in the Northwest Forest Plan area.

biodiversity—In general, the variety of life forms and their processes and ecological functions, at all levels of biological organization from genes 

to populations, species, assemblages, communities, and ecosystems.

bull trout core areas—Areas where bull trout populations have been delineated for conservation purposes. 

climate adaptation—Management actions to reduce vulnerabilities to climate change and related disturbances.

climate change—Changes in average weather conditions (including temperature, precipitation, and risk of certain types of severe weather 

events) that persist over multiple decades or longer, and that result from both natural factors and human activities such as increased emissions of 

green- house gases (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2017).

climate change refugia—Areas that remain relatively buffered from contemporary climate change across time and enable persistence of valued 

physical, ecological, and socio-cultural resources. 

collaboration or collaborative process—A structured way a collection of people with diverse interests share knowledge, ideas, and resources, 

while working together in an inclusive and cooperative manner toward a common purpose (FSH 1909.12.05).

commercial thin—An intermediate harvest with the objective of reducing stand density primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, 

and other resources objectives. Treatment can recover potential mortality while producing merchantable material. Thinning includes the 

following: chemical (killing of unwanted trees by herbicide application); crown (removal of trees from dominant and co-dominant strata); free (no 

consideration to crown position); low (removal of trees from lower crown classes); mechanical or row (removal of trees either in row, strips by 

using a fixed spacing interval); selection (removal of the crown class to favor those in the lower crown classes) (Forest Service Activity Tracking 

System Appendix B). 

community (plant and animal)—A naturally occurring assemblage of plant and animal species living within a defined area or habitat (36 CFR 

219.19).

community resilience—The capacity of a community to return to its initial function and structure when initially altered under disturbance.

community resistance—The capacity of a community to withstand a disturbance without changing its function and structure.
GLOSSARY

page

81

composition—The biological elements within the various levels of biological organization, from genes and species to communities and 

ecosystems (FSM 2020).

congressionally reserved land—Lands reserved by the U.S. Congress such as wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national parks and 

monuments.

connectivity (of habitats)—Environmental conditions that exist at several spatial and temporal scales that provide landscape linkages that 

permit (a) the exchange of flow, sediments, and nutrients; (b) genetic interchange of genes among individuals between populations; and (c) the 

long-distance range shifts of species, such as in response to climate change (36 CFR 219.19).

desired conditions—A description of specific social, economic, or ecological characteristics toward which management of the land and resources 

should be directed.

disturbance regime—A description of the characteristic types of disturbance on a given landscape; the frequency, severity, and size distribution 

of these characteristic disturbance types and their interactions (36 CFR 219.19).

disturbance restoration need—The area departed from the Natural Range of Variability (NRV) where a disruption is needed to move existing 

conditions closer to NRV. These disruption processes include fire, wind, and insects and disease. Disturbance can also be achieved through 

management tools of thinning and/or prescribed burning (Haugo and others 2015, DeMeo and others 2018).

disturbance—Any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, watershed, community, or species population structure or function, 

and that changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment (36 CFR 219.19).

dynamic reserves—A conservation approach in which protected areas are relocated following changes in environmental conditions, especially 

owing to disturbance.

early-seral vegetation—Forest conditions in the early stages of succession following an event that removes the forest canopy (e.g., timber 

harvest, wildfire, windstorm), on sites that are capable of developing a closed canopy (Swanson and others 2014). A non-forest or “pre-forest” 

condition occurs first, followed by an “early-seral forest” as young shade-intolerant trees form a closed canopy.

“complex” early-seral forest—A forest comprised of early-seral vegetation that differs from more simplified early seral forest in a few key ways. 

First complex early seral forest is often naturally occurring. It has high species diversity and is made up of survivors and legacies including organic 

structures like live and dead trees that provide habitat for surviving and colonizing organisms. Traditional forestry practices like clearcutting, 

salvage logging, and tree planting can reduce species richness and key ecological processes associated with complex early seral habitat (Swanson 

and others 2011).

eastside screens—Interim management direction establishing riparian, ecosystem and wildlife standards for timber sales on National Forest 

System lands in eastern Oregon and Washington under regional forester’s amendment 2. Consistency with Eastside Screens and National Forest 

Managment Act. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/52637_FSPLT2_116557.pdf

ecocultural resources—Valued elements of the biophysical environment, including plants, fungi, wildlife, water, and places, and the social and 

cultural relationships of people with those elements.

ecological conditions—The biological and physical environment that can affect the diversity of plant and animal communities, the persistence of 

native species, invasibility, and productive capacity of ecological systems. Ecological conditions include habitat and other influences on species 

and the environment. Examples of ecological conditions include the abundance and distribution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, connectivity, 

roads and other structural developments, human uses, and occurrence of other species (36 CFR 219.19).

ecological forestry—An ecosystem management approach designed to achieve multiple objectives that may include conservation goals and 

sustainable forest management and which emphasizes disturbance-based management and retention of “legacy” elements such as old trees and 

dead wood (Franklin and others 2007).

ecological integrity—The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (e.g., composition, structure, 

function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation and can withstand and recover from 

most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence (36 CFR 219.19).

ecological sustainability—The capability of ecosystems to maintain ecological integrity (36 CFR 219.19).

economic sustainability—The capability of society to produce and consume or otherwise benefit from goods and services, including 

contributions to jobs and market and nonmarket benefits (36 CFR 219.19).

ecoregion—A geographic area containing distinctive ecological assemblages, topographic and climatic gradients, and historical land uses.

ecosystem—A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous unit of the Earth that includes all interacting organisms and elements of the abiotic 

environment within its boundaries (36 CFR 219.19).

ecosystem diversity—The variety and relative extent of ecosystems (36 CFR 219.19).

ecosystem integrity—See “ecological integrity.”
page

82GLOSSARY

ecosystem services—Benefits that people obtain from ecosystems.

endangered species—Any species or subspecies that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce has deemed in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. Section 1532).

environmental justice populations—Groups of people who have low incomes or who identify themselves as African American, Asian or Pacific 

Islander, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or of Hispanic origin.

environmental justice—An executive order requiring that federal land managers identify any disproportionately high and adverse human 

health and environmental effects of agency programs, policies, and actions on minority and low income populations. (Grinspoon and others 

2014). An environmental justice population is a group of people that meets the criteria for low-income or minority status under E.O. 12898. An 

environmental justice population may be low income and/or minority.

environmental suitability—Environmental suitability is the conditions (here predicted by fire season precipitation, maximum temperature, slope 

and elevation) where large wildfires have manifested in the past and therefore could reasonably be predicted to occur in the future.

federally recognized Indian Tribe—An Indian Tribe or Alaska Native Corporation, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary 

of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a (36 CFR 219.19).

fire diverse ecosystems (mixed severity) (fire ecology group)—Fire can be important to ecosystem function, but it is not the primary driver of 

successional dynamics, including structure and composition. Fires were historically moderately frequent, ranging primarily between mixed and 

high severity in a variety of patch sizes.

fire exclusion—Curtailment of wildland fire because of deliberate suppression of ignitions, as well as unintentional effects of human activities 

such as intensive grazing that removes grasses and other fuels that carry fire (Keane and others 2002).

fire infrequent ecosystems (fire ecology group)—Fire is not necessarily a part of most ecosystem functions, although when fires do occur, they 

can be highly impactful. Fires were historically rare or infrequent, of mixed to high severity, in large patches, and were a rare disturbance within 

these systems.

fire regime—A characterization of long-term patterns of fire in an ecosystem across a specified and relatively long period of time, based on 

multiple attributes, including frequency, severity, extent, spatial complexity, and seasonality of fire occurrence.

fire refugia—Landscape elements that remain unburned or minimally affected by fire, thereby supporting postfire ecosystem function, 

biodiversity, and resilience to disturbances.

fire severity—The magnitude of the effects of fire on ecosystem components, in this document specifically effects of fire on vegetation.

fire suitability—The environmental conditions as measured by fire season precipitation, maximum temperature, slope and elevation that, based 

on past fire occurrence and size, would potentially host a similar fire in the future. In the BioA we discuss suitability for large wildfires.

fire suppression—The human act of extinguishing wild- fires (Keane and others 2002).

forest assessment—A report available to the public that must be completed for the development of a new plan or for a plan revision. An 

assessment is the identification and evaluation of existing information to support land management planning. Assessments are not decisionmaking documents, but provide current information on select topics relevant to the plan area, in the context of the broader landscape. (36 CFR 

219.19).

frequent-fire dependent ecosystems (fire ecology group)—Fire is essential to overall ecosystem functions. Before Euro-American settlement, 

fires were quite frequent, of low or mixed severity, and were the primary driver of disturbance. Fire in these systems drives structural and 

successional dynamics, favoring fire-dependent and fire-adapted species.

fuels (wildland)—Combustible material in wildland areas, including live and dead plant biomass such as trees, shrub, grass, leaves, litter, snags, 

and logs.

fuels management—Manipulation of wildland fuels through mechanical, chemical, biological, or manual means, or by fire, in support of land 

management objectives to control or mitigate the effects of future wildland fire.

function (ecological)—Ecological processes, such as energy flow; nutrient cycling and retention; soil development and retention; predation and 

herbivory; and natural disturbances such as wind, fire, and floods that sustain composition and structure (FSM 2020). See also “key ecological 

function.”

goals (in land management plans)—Broad statements of intent, other than desired conditions, that do not include expected completion dates 

(36 CFR part 219.7(e)(2)).

habitat—An area with the environmental conditions and resources that are necessary for occupancy by a species and for individuals of that 

species to survive and reproduce.

High-intrinsic potential assessment—An assessment conducted to determine a streams capacity to provide high-quality habitat for a given 

fish species.
GLOSSARY

page

83

invasive species—An alien species (or subspecies) whose deliberate, accidental, or self-introduction is likely to cause economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 13112).

key watersheds—Watersheds that are expected to serve as refugia for aquatic organisms, particularly in the short term, for at-risk fish 

populations that have the greatest potential for restoration, or to provide sources of high-quality water.

land management direction—Guides and directs management through a combination of aspirations and projections (desired conditions and 

objectives) and constraints (standards and guidelines). Land management direction also specifies what activities are acceptable or suitable on 

what parts of a National Forest.

land management plan (Forest Service)—A document or set of documents that provides management direction for an administrative unit of the 

National Forest System (FSH 1909.12.5).

land use allocation—A process of allocating different activities or uses to specific units of area within a geospatial context, to maximize a 

spectrum of social, economic, and ecological benefits.

landscape—A defined area irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries, such as a spatial mosaic of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, 

landforms, and plant communities, repeated in similar form throughout such a defined area (36 CFR 219.19).

late-successional forest—Forests that have developed after long periods of time (typically at least 100 to 200 years) following major 

disturbances, and that contain a major component of shade-tolerant tree species that can regenerate beneath a canopy and eventually grow 

into the canopy in which small canopy gaps occur. Note that FEMAT (1993) and the NWFP also applied this term to older (at least 80 years) forest 

types, including both old-growth and mature forests, regardless of the shade tolerance of the dominant tree species (e.g., 90 year-old forests 

dominated by Douglas-fir were termed late-successional).

late-successional reserve—Lands reserved for the protection and restoration of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems and habitat 

for associated species.

managing wildfire for resource objectives—Managing wildfires to promote multiple objectives such as reducing fire danger or restoring forest 

health and ecological processes rather than attempting full suppression. The terms “managed wildfire” or “resource objective wildfire” have 

also been used to describe such events (Long et al. 2017). However, fire managers note that many unplanned ignitions are managed using a 

combination of tactics, including direct suppression, indirect containment, monitoring of fire spread, and even accelerating fire spread, across 

their perimeters and over their full duration. Therefore, terms that separate “managed” wildfires from fully “suppressed” wildfires do not convey 

that complexity. (See “Use of wildland fire,” which also includes prescribed burning). 

matrix—Federal and other lands outside of specifically designated reserve areas, particularly the late-successional reserves under the NWFP, that 

are managed for timber production and other objectives.

minority population—A readily identifiable group of people living in geographic proximity with a population that is at least 50 percent minority; 

or, an identifiable group that has a meaningfully greater minority population than the adjacent geographic areas, or may also be a geographically 

dispersed/transient set of individuals such as migrant workers or Americans Indians (CEQ 1997).

mitigation (climate change)—Efforts to reduce anthropogenic alteration of climate, in particular by increasing carbon sequestration.

monitoring—A systematic process of collecting information to track implementation (implementation monitoring), to evaluate effects of actions 

or changes in conditions or relationships (effectiveness monitoring), or to test underlying assumptions (validation monitoring) (see 36 CFR 219.19).

native species—A species historically or currently present in a particular ecosystem as a result of natural migratory or evolutionary processes and 

not as a result of an accidental or deliberate introduction or invasion into that ecosystem (see 36 CFR 219.19).

natural range of variation (NRV)—The variation of ecological characteristics and processes over specified scales of time and space that are 

appropriate for a given management application (FSH 1909.12.5). 

nontimber forest products (special forest products)—Various products from forests that do not include logs from trees but do include bark, 

berries, boughs, bryophytes, bulbs, burls, Christmas trees, cones, ferns, fire- wood, forbs, fungi (including mushrooms), grasses, mosses, nuts, pine 

straw, roots, sedges, seeds, transplants, tree sap, wildflowers, fence material, mine props, posts and poles, shingle and shake bolts, and rails (36 

CFR part 223 Subpart G).

old-growth forest—A forest distinguished by old trees (>200 years) and related structural attributes that often (but not always) include large 

trees, high biomass of dead wood (i.e., snags, down coarse wood), multiple canopy layers, distinctive species composition and functions, and 

vertical and horizontal diversity in the tree canopy. In dry, fire-frequent forests, old growth is characterized by large, old fire-resistant trees and 

relatively open stands with- out canopy layering.

passive management—A management approach in which natural processes are allowed to occur without human intervention to reach desired 

outcomes.

patch—A relatively small area with similar environmental conditions, such as vegetative structure and composition. Sometimes used 

interchangeably with vegetation or forest stand.
page

84GLOSSARY

prescribed fire—A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified in a written and approved prescribed fire 

plan for which National Environmental Policy Act requirements (where applicable) have been met prior to ignition (synonymous with controlled 

burn).

probable sale quantity—An estimate of the average amount of timber likely to be awarded for sale for a given area (such as the NWFP area) 

during a specified period.

recreation opportunity—An opportunity to participate in a specific recreation activity in a particular recreation setting to enjoy desired 

recreation experiences and other benefits that accrue. Recreation opportunities include non- motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed 

recreation on land, water, and in the air (36 CFR 219.19).

reference conditions—Vegetation or forest metrics that represent resilient conditions. For the BioA, either natural range of variation, historic 

range of variation, or conditions that incorporate future environmental change. Historic range of variation is often based on pre-European 

settlement conditions. 

refugia—An area that remains less altered by climatic and environmental change (including disturbances such as wind and fire) affecting 

surrounding regions and that therefore forms a haven for plants and wildlife.

regeneration harvest—A cutting procedure by which a stand is established or renewed and a new age class is created. Each method of 

regeneration harvest consists of the removal of the old stand, the establishment of a new one, and any treatments that are applied to create and 

maintain conditions favorable to the start and early growth of reproduction. 

reserve—An area of land designated and managed for a special purpose, often to conserve or protect ecosystems, species, or other natural and 

cultural resources from particular human activities that are detrimental to achieving the goals of the area.

resilience—The ability of an ecosystem and its component parts to absorb, or recover from the effects of disturbances through preservation, 

restoration, or improvement of its essential structures and functions and redundancy of ecological patterns across the landscape.

restoration need—The difference between existing conditions and Natural Range of Variability (NRV). In terms of forest structure, this is the area 

departed from the natural range of variation. It can be in need of treatment (thinning and/or prescribed fire) to change or maintain structure, or in 

need of succession to develop into older structural conditions. See disturbance and succession restoration need (Haugo and others 2015, DeMeo 

and others 2018). 

riparian areas—Three-dimensional ecotones (the transition zone between two adjoining communities) of inter- action that include terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems that extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward across the floodplain, up the near slopes that drain to 

the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and along the water course at variable widths (36 CFR 219.19).

riparian reserves—Reserves established along streams and rivers to protect riparian ecological functions and processes necessary to create and 

maintain habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms over time and ensure connectivity within and between watersheds. The Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy in the NWFP record of decision included standards and guidelines that delineated riparian reserves.

risk—A combination of the probability that a negative out- come will occur and the severity of the subsequent negative consequences (36 CFR 

219.19).

salvage cut—An intermediate harvest removing trees which are dead or dying because of injurious agents other than competition, to recover 

economic value that would otherwise be lost (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Appendix B).

sanitation cut—An intermediate harvest removing trees to improve stand health by stopping or reducing the actual or anticipated spread of 

insects and disease (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Appendix B).

scale—In ecological terms, the extent and resolution in spatial and temporal terms of a phenomenon or analysis, which differs from the definition 

in cartography regarding the ratio of map distance to Earth surface distance (Jenerette and Wu 2000).

science synthesis—A narrative review of scientific information from a defined pool of sources that compiles and integrates and interprets 

findings and describes uncertainty, including the boundaries of what is known and what is not known.

sensitive species—Plant or animal species that receive special conservation attention because of threats to their populations or habitats, but 

which do not have special status as listed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Sierra Nevada Framework—Plan amendment that amended land management plans of forests in the Sierra Nevada Mountains including the 

Lassen and Modoc National Forests. https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/FC_LawsPolicyRegulations/KFSP_SierraNevadaFramework.php

special forest products—See “nontimber forest products.”

species of conservation concern—A species, other than federally recognized as a threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, that 

is known to occur in the NWFP area and for which the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates 

substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long term in the Plan area (36 CFR 219.9(c)).

stand—A descriptor of a land management unit consisting of a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class distribution, 

composition, and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit.
GLOSSARY

page

85

stand clear-cut—An even-aged regeneration or harvest method that removes all trees in the stand producing a fully exposed microclimate for the 

development of a new age class in one entry (Forest Service Activity Tracking System Appendix B).

standard—A mandatory constraint on project and activity decision-making, established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or 

conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

single-tree selection cut—An uneven-aged regeneration method where individual trees of all size classes are removed more or less uniformly 

throughout the stand creating or maintaining a multiage structure to promote growth of remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration. 

Multiple entries of this activity ultimately results in an uneven-aged stand of 3 or more age classes (Forest Service Activity Tracking System 

Appendix B).

strategic surveys—One type of field survey, specified under the NWFP, designed to fill key information gaps on species distributions and 

ecologies by which to determine if species should be included under the Plan’s Survey and Manage species list.

stressors—Factors that may directly or indirectly degrade or impair ecosystem composition, structure, or ecological process in a manner that may 

impair its ecological integrity, such as an invasive species, loss of connectivity, or the disruption of a natural disturbance regime (36 CFR 219.19).

structure (ecosystem)—The organization and physical arrangement of biological elements such as snags and down woody debris, vertical and 

horizontal distribution of vegetation, stream habitat complexity, landscape pattern, and connectivity (FSM 2020).

succession restoration need—The area departed from the Natural Range of Variability (NRV) where natural ecological processes are needed to 

move existing conditions closer to NRV. Succession processes inherently require time and include plant growth, decomposition, and regeneration 

(Haugo and others 2015, DeMeo and others 2018). 

survey and manage standards and guidelines—A formal part of the NWFP that established protocols for conducting various types of species 

surveys, identified old-forest-associated species warranting additional consideration for monitoring and protection (see “Survey and Manage 

species”), and instituted an annual species review procedure that evaluated new scientific and monitoring information on species for potentially 

recommending changes in their conservation status, including potential removal from the Survey and Manage species list.

survey and manage species—A list of species, compiled under the survey and manage standards and guidelines of the NWFP, that were deemed 

to warrant particular attention for monitoring and protection beyond the guidelines for establishing late-successional forest reserves.

sustainability—The capability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 

needs (36 CFR 219.19).

sustainable recreation—The set of recreation settings and opportunities in the National Forest System that is ecologically, economically, and 

socially sustainable for present and future generations (36 CFR 219.19).

threatened species—Any species that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce has determined is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are listed at 50 CFR 

sections 17.11, 17.12, and 223.102.

timber harvest—The removal of trees for wood fiber use and other multiple-use purposes (36 CFR 219.19).

timber production—The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other 

round sections for industrial or consumer use (36 CFR 219.19).

use of wildland fire—Management of either wildfire or prescribed fire to meet resource objectives specified in land or resource management 

plans (see “Managing wildfire for resource objectives” and “Prescribed fire”).

watershed—A region or land area drained by a single stream, river, or drainage network; a drainage basin (36 CFR 219.19).

watershed analysis—An analytical process that characterizes watersheds and identifies potential actions for addressing problems and concerns, 

along with possible management options. It assembles information necessary to determine the ecological characteristics and behavior of the 

watershed and to develop options to guide management in the watershed, including adjusting riparian reserve boundaries.

watershed condition—The state of a watershed based on physical and biogeochemical characteristics and processes (36 CFR 219.19).

watershed restoration—Restoration activities that focus on restoring the key ecological processes required to create and maintain favorable 

environmental conditions for aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms.

wilderness—Any area of land designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that was established by the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136) (36 CFR 219.19).

wildfire—Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a fire caused by lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires), 

and escaped prescribed fires.

wildland-urban interface (WUI)—The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped 

wildland or vegetation fuels.
page

86REFERENCES

References

Adams, M.D.O. (in progress; subject to peer review). Chapter 2 Typology of Northwest Forest Plan Counties Circa 1990. In: Grinspoon, E., tech. 

coord. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 25 years (1994–2018): socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Barrett, S., Havlina, D., Jones, J., [and others]. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0 [Homepage of the 

Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy].

Brown, T.C., P. Froemke, W. Mahat, and J.A. Ramirez. 2016. Mean Annual Renewable Water Supply of the Contiguous United States. Briefing 

paper. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 55 pp. 

Cerveny, L.K., Davis, E.J., McLain, R. [and others]. 2018. Understanding our changing public Values, Resource Uses, and Engagement Processes 

and Practices. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management 

within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 717-807. 966.

Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ]. 1997. Environmental justice guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. [Updated]. https://

www. epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/ej_ guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. (21 December 2017). 

Charnley, S.; Kline, J.D.; White, E.M. [and others]. 2018. Socioeconomic well-being and forest management in northwest forest plan-area 

communities. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management 

within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 625-715. 966: 625-715. 

Coughlan, M. R.; Huber-Stearns, H., Adams, M.D.O., [and others]. (in progress; subject to peer review).Chapter 4 Community Case Studies. 

In: Grinspoon, E., tech. coord. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 25 years (1994–2018): socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTRXXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Davis and others 2015 Davis, R.; Ohmann, J.; Kennedy, R. [and others]. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan–the first 20 years (1994-2013): status and 

trends of late-successional and old-growth forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-911. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 112 p.

Davis, K.T.; Dobrowski, S.Z.; Higuera, P.E. [and others]. 2019. Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate 

threshold for tree regeneration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116(13): 6193-6198. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1815107116.

Davis, R.J.; Bell, D.M.; Gregory, M.J.; Yang, [and others]. (in progress; subject to peer review). Northwest Forest Plan–the first quarter-century: 

status and trends of late-successional and old-growth forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 

Dillon, Gregory. 2017. Unpublished analysis not included in Dillon and others 2015.

Dillon, Gregory K. In Press. Results and application of the National Wildfire Risk Assessment. In: Hood, Sharon M.; Drury, Stacy; Steelman, Toddi; 

and Steffens, Ron, eds. Proceedings of the Fire Continuum – preparing for the future of wildland fire; 2018 May 21-24; Missoula, MT. Proceedings 

RMRS-P. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Online.

Dillon, G.K.; Menakis, J.; Fay, F. 2015. Wildland fire potential: a tool for assessing wildfire risk and fuels management needs. In: Keane, R.E.; M. 

Jolly; R. Parsons; K. Riley. Proceedings, large wildland fires conference; 19–23 May, 2014; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-73. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 60–76 p.

Dugger, K.M.; Forsman, E.D.; Franklin, A.B. [and others]. 2016. The effects of habitat, climate, and Barred Owls on long-term demography of 

Northern Spotted Owls. Condor. 118(1): 57-116.

Dumroese, R.K., Flores, D., Haire, E.R. [and others]. 2018. Northern California Plateaus Science Synthesis: to support Forest Plan Development 

by the Lassen National Forest and Modoc National Forest – Public Review Draft. Washington DC USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report 

WO-XXX. 305 pp. 

DeMeo, T.; Haugo, R.; Ringo, C. [and others]. 2018. Expanding Our Understanding of Forest Structural Restoration Needs in the Pacific 

Northwest. Northwest Science. Vol. 92, No. 1, 2018.
REFERENCES

page

87

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA]; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1536, 1538-1540. 

Endangered and threatened wildlife, plants and marine and anadromous species lists; 50 CFR 17.11, 17.12 and 223.102.

Executive Order No. 12898. 59 FR 7629, February 11, 1994. Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations. https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf (December 2019). 

Executive Order No. 13112. 64 FR 6183, February 8, 1999. Invasive species. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ FR-1999-02-08/pdf/99-3184.pdf. 

(June 2017).

Franklin, J.F.; Mitchell, R.J.; Palik, B.J. 2007. Natural disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRSGTR- 19. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 44 p. doi:10.2737/nrs-gtr-19.

Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, K.N.; Johnson, D.L. 2018. Ecological forest management. Waveland Press. Long Grove Illinois. 646 pp.

Furnish, J. 2013. 2012. Annual Report on the Monitoring of Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the National Forests of the Sierra 

Nevada Province: 2009 – 2012. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.

Gilbertson-Day, J.W., Stratton, R.D., Scott, J.H. [and others]. 2018. Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment: Methods and 

Results. April 9, 2018 v2. 90 pp.

Grinspoon, E.; Schaefers, J.; Periman, R.; [and others]. 2014. Striving for inclusion: addressing environmental justice for Forest Service NEPA. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 20 p.

Grinspoon, E, Borchers A., and Jaworski D. (in progress; subject to peer review).Chapter 1 Northwest Forest Plan: Socioeconomic Status and 

Trends. In: Grinspoon, E., tech. coord. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 25 years (1994–2018): socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hatcher, W.; Rondeau, S.; Johnson, D.L. [and others]. 2017. Klamath Tribes: Managing Their Homeland Forests in Partnership with the USDA 

Forest Service. Journal of Forestry. 115(5): 447-455.

Haugo, R.; Zanger, C.; DeMeo, T. [and others]. 2015. A new approach to evaluate forest structure restoration needs across Oregon and 

Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 335: 37-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.09.014.

Jenerette, G.D.; Wu, J. 2000. On the definitions of scale. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 81(1): 104–105.

Keane, R.E.; Ryan, K.C.; Veblen, T.T.; [and others]. 2002. Cascading effects of fire exclusion in the Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature 

review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-91. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p. 

doi:10.2737/rmrsgtr-91.

Koenig, A.; Stein, J. 2008. Federalism and the state recognition of Native American tribes: a survey of state-recognized tribes and state 

recognition processes across the United States. Santa Clara Law Review. 48(1): 79–153.

Krist, F.J.; Ellenwood, J.R.; Woods, M.E. [and others]. 2014. 2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment. Fort Collins, CO: U.S 

Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. 

Lesmeister, D.B.; Davis, R.J.; Singleton, P.H.; Wiens, J.D. 2018. Northern spotted owl habitat and populations: status and threats. In: Spies, TA; 

Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest 

Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 245-

299. 966: 245-299.

Long, J.W.; Tarnay, L.W.; North, M.P. 2017. Aligning smoke management with ecological and public health goals. Journal of Forestry. https://doi.

org/10.5849/jof.16-042. (22 December 2017). 

Long, J.; Lake, F.K.; Lynn, K.; Viles, C. 2018. Tribal ecocultural resources and engagement. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, 

MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. 

Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 851-917. 966: 851-917.

Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Hoffman, J. [and others]. 2013. The impacts of climate change on Tribal traditional foods. In: Climate Change and Indigenous 

Peoples in the United States. Springer: 37-48.

Marcot, B.G., Pope, K.L., Slauson, K., [and others]. 2018. Chapter 6: Other Species and Biodiversity of Older Forests. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; 

Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 371-460, 966.

Miller, S.A.; Gordon, S.N.; Eldred, P.; [and others]. 2017. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 20 years (1994-2013): watershed condition status and 

trends. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-932. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serviced, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 74 p.

Morelli, T.L.; Daly, C.; Dobrowski, S.Z.; [and others]. 2016. Managing climate change refugia for climate adaptation. PLoS One. 11(8): e0159909. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159909.
page

88REFERENCES

National Forest System Land Management Planning; New plan development or plan revision; 36 CFR part 219.7(e)(2).

National Forest System Land Management Planning; Diversity of plant and animal communities; Species of Conservation Concern; 36 CFR 

219.9(c).

National Forest System Land Management Planning; Definitions; 36 CFR 219.19.

NCDE Subcommittee. 2019. Conservation strategy for the grizzly bear in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. (170 pages + appendices).

O’Hara, K.L. 2014. Multiaged silviculture: Managing for complex forest stand structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 213 p.

Raphael, M.G.; Falxa, G.A.; Burger, A.E. 2018. Marbled murrelet. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 

2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 301-370. 966: 301-370.

Reeves, G. H., Olson, D. H., Wondzell, S. M., [and others]. (2018). The aquatic conservation strategy of the northwest forest plan—A review of 

the relevant science after 23 years. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform 

land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 461-624., 966, 461-624.

Reilly, M.J.; Spies, T.A.; Littell, J. [and others]. 2018. Climate, disturbance, and vulnerability to vegetation change in the Northwest Forest Plan 

area. In: Spies, T.A.; Stine, P.A.; Gravenmier, R.; Long, J.W.; Reilly, M.J., eds. Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest 

Forest Plan Area. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 28-93. Chapter 2. Vol. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-966 Vol. 1.

Ringo, C.; DeMeo, T.; Simpson, M. [and others]. 2019. “Vegetation structural restoration needs at landscape scale for the Bioregional 

Assessment area.” Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Roper, B. B., Saunders, W. C., & Ojala, J. V. (2019). Did changes in western federal land management policies improve salmonid habitat in 

streams on public lands within the Interior Columbia River Basin?. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 191(9), 574.

Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber; 36 CFR part 223 Subpart G.

Scott, J.H.; Gilbertson-Day, J.; Stratton, R.D. 2018. Exposure of human communities to wildfire in the Pacific Northwest. Briefing paper. 10 p. 

Available at: http://pyrologix.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/RiskToCommunities_OR-WA_BriefingPaper.pdf.

Sedell, J., Sharpe, M., Dravnieks Apple, D., [and others]. 2000. Water and the Forest Service. FS-660. US Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Washington Office. January 2000. 26 pp.

Spies, T.A.; Stine, P.A.; Gravenmier, R. [and others]. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan 

area. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Spies, T.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N. [and others]. 2018a. Old growth, disturbance, forest succession, and management in the area of 

the Northwest Forest Plan. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land 

management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 95-243. 966: 95-243.

Spies, T.A.; Long, J.W.; Stine, P. [and others]. 2018b. Integrating ecological and social science to inform land management in the area of 

the northwest forest plan. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land 

management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 919-1020. 966: 919-1020.

Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; [and others]. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and reality. Journal 

of Forestry. 101(1): 40–46. 

Stankey, G.H.; Clark, R.N.; Bormann, B.T., eds. 2006. Learning to manage a complex ecosystem: adaptive management and the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-567. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 194 p.

Stine, P.; Hessburg, P.; Spies, T.; [and others]. 2014. The ecology and management of moist mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and 

Washington: a synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and implications for future land management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-897. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 254 p. 

Stine, P.; and Spies, T. 2018. Introduction In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to 

inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1-27. 966: 1-27.

Swanson, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Beschta, R.L. [and others]. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest 

sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2): 117-125. DOI: 10.1890/090157.
REFERENCES

page

89

Swanson, M.E.; Studevant, N.M.; Campbell, J.L.; Donato, D.C. 2014. Biological associates of early-seral pre-forest in the Pacific Northwest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 324: 160-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.03.046.

Thompson, M.P.; Haas, J.R.; Finney, M.A. [and others]. 2015. Development and application of a probabilistic method for wildfire suppression 

cost modeling. Forest Policy and Economics. 50: 249-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.10.001.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Decision Notice for the Revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem 

and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales; United States Forest Service Region 6 Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, 

Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and Winema National Forests in Oregon and Washington. http://fsweb.r6.fs.fed.us/resource-planning-monitoring/

documents/1995dn.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Record of Decision 

and Management Direction. January 21, 2004. 71 pp. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_046095.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Baseline Estimates of Carbon Stocks in Forests and Harvested Wood Products for National Forest System Units; 

Pacific Northwest Region. 48 pp. Whitepaper. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd548562.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2015b. Land management planning handbook. FSH 1909.12. Washington, DC. https://

www.fs.usda. gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprd3828310. (31 May 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2016. Ecosystem Restoration. FSM 2000; Chapter 2020. Washington, DC. https://

www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2000/wo_2020-2016-1.docx. (May 27, 2016).

USDA Forest Service. 2018. Natural Resource Manager FACTS (Forest Service Activity Tracking System) User Guide. October 18, 2018, 417 pp. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Glossary. [Updated]. http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change/ glossary. (11 October 2017).

Wilderness Act of 1964; 16 U.S.C. 1131–1136.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender