Q&A: Wildfire in protected NW Forests highlights need for strategy updates
Our take
The recent findings from University of Washington researchers regarding wildfires in protected Northwest forests underscore the urgent need for a reevaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan, originally enacted in 1994. This plan, aimed at preserving vital habitats for endangered species, is now under threat as wildfires become more frequent and intense due to climate change. As outlined in the article, these developments highlight the intersection of ecological preservation and the ever-evolving challenges posed by our changing environment. For those interested in the broader implications of environmental policy, this situation parallels recent discussions in other contexts, such as the ruling that reinstated a professor at Texas State for speaking on sensitive topics like the Israel-Palestine conflict (Court Rules Texas State Must Reinstate Prof Fired for Israel-Palestine Talk) and the legal actions taken by students at Kentucky State University to challenge new laws impacting their education (Kentucky State University Students, Alumni Sue to Block New State Law). Both cases reflect the growing recognition of the need to advocate for our rights and resources in changing times.
Wildfires are not just a natural occurrence; they are a direct manifestation of the larger climate crisis affecting us all. For the Cougs and the broader community, this research serves as a wake-up call to recognize that the ecosystems we cherish, particularly those managed under the Northwest Forest Plan, are at risk. The reality is that if we want to protect these natural resources and the species that rely on them, we need a strategy that adapts to the current environmental landscape. The traditional methods of forest management may no longer suffice, and it’s crucial that we engage in a dialogue about innovative approaches that can address fire risks while still honoring conservation goals.
Moreover, this situation emphasizes the importance of local community involvement in environmental stewardship. We can’t rely solely on top-down policies; grassroots efforts and local knowledge can play a significant role in shaping effective responses. The research illustrates the necessity of collaborative strategies that bring together scientists, policy-makers, and community members to develop solutions that are both practical and sustainable. It’s a reminder that while we work toward ambitious goals, we must also remain grounded in the realities facing our local environments.
As we look ahead, it’s vital for us as a community to stay informed and involved. The question remains: how will we respond to these challenges? Will we advocate for strategic updates that reflect the realities of our changing climate, or will we continue to cling to outdated frameworks that no longer serve our needs? Engaging in these discussions, whether through academic channels, local organizations, or everyday conversations, is essential. As students and community members, we have the power to influence the conversation and push for meaningful change. The future of our forests, and the species they support, depends on our collective action and commitment to stewardship.
The Northwest Forest Plan, adopted in 1994, helped quell mounting tensions between timber companies and environmentalists. It protected large swaths of old-growth forest in Washington, Oregon and California to preserve habitat for endangered species, including the Northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet.
While the plan is largely considered a success, researchers and land managers have begun to question whether it adequately protects forests threatened by climate change. Wildfires of increasing strength and severity sweep through Northwest forests every year, both on the east side of the mountains where conditions are drier and in wet mossy western forests.
In a recent study, researchers looked at more than 2,200 fires over several decades to evaluate how wildfire is impacting Northwest Forest Plan lands. They observed a steady uptick in area burned and severity of wildfire in both dry and moist protected forests during the study period.
Federal and state representatives have been in conversation about amending the plan for several years now. A new iteration of the Northwest Forest Plan could lean on more active management, including intentional burning and Indigenous cultural burning, which involves strategically introducing fire to maintain ecosystem health.
UW News asked the study’s lead author, Gina Cova, a UW senior research scientist of environmental and forest sciences, what the new research means for the plan.
Why did you do this study?
Gina Cova: For several years now, people have talked about revisiting the Northwest Forest Plan to incorporate amendments that account for the effects of recent wildfires and climate change. Some of these conversations were inspired by executive orders emphasizing the importance of old-growth forest protections. Others followed new research documenting the effects of climate change across the region.
We’ve seen more fire within the Northwest Forest Plan area, both in dry, fire-prone forests, but also in moist forests that we consider less likely to burn. Those events included a few really high-profile fires, such as the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire that burned close to 175,000 acres in western Oregon and raised questions about land management strategies in this era of climate change. We started to think about evaluating these past fires to inform plan amendments aimed at management strategies to sustain old forests across the region.
What were some of the key takeaways from the study?
GC: A broad theme is that these are dynamic landscapes and they need to be managed as such. We looked at the environmental factors driving burn severity for 2,200 different wildfires and studied the forest patterns resulting from those events. The effects of wildfire in some areas were surprising. For example, we found that high severity fire affected around 60% of pine-oak woodlands in federally protected reserves throughout the eastern Cascades and Klamath regions. These forests are adapted to frequent, low intensity fires. We know that they need fire, but the severity of these fires reflects a long history of fire exclusion — or lack of fire — across the landscape.
What do you mean by a lack of fire? Aren’t we supposed to stop wildfires?
GC: Because enacting changes to management strategies has been difficult to do in practice, parts of the Northwest Forest Plan inadvertently reinforced the idea of preserving a static forest condition. This approach is analogous to drawing a boundary around a forest to prevent disturbance. It is rooted in conservation ideas from the early and mid-20th century, but we know that disturbances — especially fire — are important for forests. So, you get this kind of fire paradox where many of these forests need fire, but the longer they go without it the more devastating it ultimately becomes.
These frequent-fire forests — like pine-oak woodlands and dry mixed conifer forests — can ultimately fare better in a warmer climate, so it is really alarming to see how much dry forest cover we are losing to fire under current management strategies.
What about other forests? How can one plan account for both dry and moist forests?
GC: It’s going to require a bit of creativity, combined with place-based, local approaches. The past three and a half decades have been relatively quiet in terms of fire activity in moist forests west of the Cascade Mountains. However, over the past 10 years, we observed an increase in area burned and area burned at high severity, indicating more loss of forest cover. This trend reflects some of these big fire years that have occurred in the last decade.
It can be harder to predict future wildfire activity in moist forests. When fires do occur, our study documented several occasions where high severity fires affected entire forest reserves. This creates gaps in this network of old forest habitat the plan was designed to create. If recent wildfires have compromised that original goal, how might future management strategies need to adapt? This could look like adjusting the boundaries of existing forest reserves, implementing protections for forests outside of reserves or building flexibility into pre-and post-fire management strategies to protect forests.
How can we keep the plan current when conditions are changing so quickly?
GC: When you manage land with a focus on a single issue, or a limited set of issues, you’re going to run into problems. The plan accounted for the effects of wildfire as it was in 1994, but did not anticipate how wildfire would shift with climate change. We don’t necessarily need to know exactly what the landscape will look like in the future, but we need policies and management strategies that will allow us to adapt to changing and novel conditions.
We have pretty strong evidence that the next century will be warmer and bring more fire. Can we create a plan that incorporates adaptive management to anticipate some of these changes instead of just responding to them as they occur.
Co-authors include Susan Prichard, a UW research scientist and Van R. Kane, a UW research associate professor, both of environmental and forest sciences; Harold Zald of the USDA Forest Service, and William Gaines of the Washington Conservation Science Institute.
This research was partially funded by the USDA Forest Service.
For more information, contact Cova at cova@uw.edu.
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience