Forest Management to Address Wildfire in the Westside Pacific Northwest Across Ecoregions and Ownership Types
This study assesses wildfire management practices across diverse ownerships and ecoregions in the moist Pacific Northwest, revealing a gap between current actions and fire science recommendations driven by structural barriers and uncertainty, while highlighting the critical role of social strategies and specific policy reforms in addressing emerging wildfire risks in historically wet landscapes.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
For decades, the forests west of the Cascade Mountains in the Pacific Northwest were viewed as a sanctuary from fire. These moist, temperate woodlands, filled with Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and red cedar, received enough rain that wildfires were rare, often returning only once every few centuries. Because of this history, the rules for managing these forests were built for a wet world where fire was an afterthought. However, the climate is changing. Warmer, drier summers and shifting weather patterns are turning these historically wet landscapes into places where fire can spread with terrifying speed and intensity. The stakes are incredibly high: these forests hold the water that supplies major cities, provide critical habitat for wildlife, and surround the homes of millions of people. When the 2020 Labor Day fires swept through Oregon and Washington, burning nearly 300,000 hectares in just two days, it became clear that the old ways of thinking were no longer enough. The question facing land managers is no longer just how to put out a fire, but how to prepare forests that were never meant to burn for a future where fire is a constant threat.
To understand how different groups are responding to this new reality, researchers from the US Forest Service and Portland State University conducted a deep dive into the minds and actions of the people who manage these lands. They spoke with 61 managers representing four distinct types of landowners: federal agencies, tribal nations, state governments, and large private corporations. These owners control millions of acres across five different ecological regions, ranging from the damp, foggy Coast Range to the drier, more fire-prone Klamath Mountains. The researchers wanted to know two things: what specific actions are these managers taking to reduce wildfire risk, and how do their choices change depending on where they are and who they work for? They found that while everyone agrees fire is a problem, the solutions they choose vary wildly, shaped by a complex mix of local ecology, legal rules, and the personal values of the people in charge.
The most universal action taken by every single group was the treatment of logging slash. When trees are cut down, the leftover branches and tops are piled up and burned. This practice is nearly 100 percent common across all ownerships. However, when it came to more aggressive treatments designed to stop a fire from climbing into the tree canopy or spreading across the landscape, the picture became much more complicated. In the drier ecoregions like the Klamath and the Cascades, federal and tribal managers were actively cutting down ladder fuels—small trees and bushes that allow fire to climb from the ground to the treetops—and creating strategic breaks in the forest where vegetation is cleared to stop a fire's path. They also used prescribed fire, carefully setting small, controlled burns to clear out excess fuel. In contrast, in the wetter Coast Range, these aggressive treatments were largely absent. Managers there explained that the vegetation grows back so quickly that clearing it out is a losing battle; a fuel break cleared today might be overgrown with new brush in just five years, rendering the effort useless.
This difference in approach highlights a fundamental tension between what fire science suggests and what is practical on the ground. Scientific models often recommend widespread fuel treatments to make forests more resilient, but managers on the westside are often skeptical that these treatments will work during the extreme weather events that drive the biggest fires. They worry that if the weather is hot and windy enough, no amount of thinning will stop a fire. Consequently, many managers are shifting their focus away from trying to change the forest itself and toward managing human behavior. Since nearly three-quarters of wildfires in this region are started by people, strategies like closing roads during dry, windy days, educating the public about campfire safety, and restricting access to sensitive areas have become central to their plans. For some private owners, the strategy is even more drastic: they are selling off their most fire-prone lands or purchasing insurance, treating the risk as a financial problem rather than a forestry one.
The type of landowner also dictates the tools they can use. Federal managers, who oversee the largest share of the land, reported the highest level of concern about future fires, yet they also felt the most constrained. They are often blocked by a maze of regulations, including laws designed to protect endangered species and strict environmental review processes that can delay projects for years. They also face intense public pressure; many local residents oppose prescribed burns because of the smoke, even though those same residents are at risk from uncontrolled wildfires. State managers face a different hurdle: their legal mandate is to generate revenue for public schools, which often conflicts with the expensive, non-revenue-generating work of fire prevention. Private corporate owners, ranging from family-run timber companies to investment funds, vary the most. Those who feel a deep connection to the land and plan to manage it for generations are more likely to invest in long-term fire resilience. Those focused on short-term profits for shareholders often stick to the bare minimum, treating only the logging debris and avoiding the costs of broader fuel management.
Perhaps the most striking finding is that the gap between what science recommends and what is actually happening is not due to a lack of knowledge, but to a lack of capacity and permission. Managers across all groups expressed a genuine uncertainty about whether their efforts will make a difference when the weather turns extreme. They are caught between the fear of a catastrophic fire and the fear that their actions—whether it is cutting trees, burning fuel, or closing roads—will be criticized or legally challenged. The researchers found that while the biophysical environment sets the stage, the real drivers of decision-making are social and institutional. Public tolerance for smoke, the threat of lawsuits, the need to generate income, and the desire to protect cultural heritage all shape the forest as much as the trees and the rain do.
The study concludes that there is no single solution for the westside. The strategies that work in the dry, fire-prone Klamath Mountains are not suitable for the wet, fast-growing Coast Range. Similarly, a policy that works for a federal agency will not work for a private family business. The path forward requires a governance system that is flexible enough to respect these differences. It demands that we look beyond just the trees and the fire, and address the human systems that govern them. This means finding ways to make prescribed fire socially acceptable, creating financial mechanisms that allow private owners to invest in resilience without going bankrupt, and recognizing the unique authority of tribal nations to manage fire according to their own traditions. As the climate continues to change, the forests of the Pacific Northwest will face a future where fire is a regular visitor. Preparing for that future requires not just better science, but a better understanding of the people who hold the keys to the forest.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.