In the Pacific Northwest, where towering forests and vibrant rural communities intertwine, a new chapter in forest management is unfolding. The US Forest Service has unveiled a bold proposal to update Northwest forest plana policy that has guided the care of 38,000 square miles of forestland across Oregon, Washington and California since 1994. But as this plan takes shape, it has sparked passionate conversations about wildfire safety, economic revitalization and nature’s delicate balance.

What is changing in the forest?

The core of the proposal lies in a significant expansion of the timber harvest – potentially tripling the current level. Here is an overview of the main ideas:

• Logging of larger trees: Harvest limits will increase from trees 80 years old to trees as young as 120. The Forest Service believes this will encourage the growth of large, fire-resistant old-growth trees by thinning out dense, younger stands.
• Reduce the risk of forest fires: By managing overcrowded forests, the plan aims to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires and protect nearby communities.
• Economic revival: Increases in logging are expected to revitalize rural economies, create jobs in forestry and milling, while stabilizing timber supplies.

The balance law: Conservation vs. economy

This proposal does not exist in a vacuum – it is a dramatic shift from Northwest Forest Plan of 1994, which restricted logging to protect ecosystems and species such as the northern spotted owl. This decision, while crucial for conservation, caused deep economic wounds in tree-dependent communities.

Now that wildfire seasons are getting longer and hotter, the Forest Service argues it’s time for a change that incorporates modern climate science and indigenous forest management practices.

But not everyone is convinced. Environmentalists fear that the plan leans too much towards the interests of industry.

“By targeting mature and old-growth forests, the Forest Service risks unraveling decades of progress protecting critical ecosystems,” said John Persell, an attorney with Oregon Wild.

A thorny history and a divided future

The debate highlights a recurring tension: how to manage forests for both people and nature. Critics of the plan point to past controversies, including efforts to weaken protections for the northern spotted owl under the Trump administration — an issue reversed under President Biden, who is also fighting to protect old-growth forests to combat climate change.

The representatives of the wood industry, on the other hand, see the opportunity.

“This plan represents a modern approach to tackling wildfires, toxic smoke and rural economic challenges,” said Travis Joseph, president of the American Forest Resource Council.

What happens next?

For now, the Forest Service is opening the floor to public input, with a 120-day comment period coming up. A final environmental review is expected in the fall of 2025, with a decision likely in early 2026.