Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO CRANES AND CONSERVATION

OLD-GROWTH FORESTS, OWLS, AND CONSERVATION PARADIGMS

by Jerry F. Franklin

As a child I spent many days and nights camping amongst the old-growth forests of Douglas fir and western red cedar in the Cascade Range of northwestern North America. Although I lacked both concepts and vocabulary, the scale, complexity, and beauty of these old-growth forests impressed themselves upon me while my sister and I swung from the vine maples and played hide-and-seek among the fallen logs. By age nine I had determined that a life working in these forests was for me.

Entering forestry school I learned that these forests were essentially unknown scientifically. Nor was any major research planned because most of the forests were scheduled for extirpation--replacement by plantations of young trees. Why not replace them? Wildlife biologists referred to old-growth forests as "biological deserts," and some foresters even described them as "cellulose cemeteries."

Fortunately, an opportunity for serious study of the northwestern old-growth forests emerged in 1968 with support from the U.S. International Biological Program. Subsequently a cascade of studies has taught us about the distinctive ecological attributes--compositional, functional, and structural--that characterize old-growth forests and distinguish them from younger forests.

My professional involvement with these old-growth forests has been a central theme of my career. First came scientific learning, which has continued to the present and has been a continuing source of discoveries, some leading to epiphanies. The ecological recognition of the log on the forest floor, for example--an object previously viewed as a waste, impediment, and fire hazard, which in fact fulfills critical ecological functions.

My involvement continued with participation in the evolution of public policy regarding old-growth forests and their constituent species. What a slippery slope this policy stuff is--and what an opportunity for learning how science can influence policy! The activities ranged from the congressionally chartered "Gang of Four" to President Clinton's Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team and, finally, development of the Northwestern Forest Plan.

These activities--and many others along the way and since--have provided me with many lessons. One of those has been the need to constantly re-examine my premises regarding conservation, including both the paradigms that underpin conservation and the social context within which conservation occurs. Such reassessments can be challenging because many premises are embedded deeply in our psyche, training, and experience. We tend to cling tightly to old paradigms no matter how limiting they have become--i.e., we fight the old fights when both the context and the challenge have changed.

The Northern Spotted Owl (NSO), Strix occidentalis caurina, provides a good example of the importance of reassessing premises. NSO has been the flagship species in the struggle for conservation of the primeval forests of the Pacific Northwest. We have learned a great deal about the owl during the 30 years since Eric Forsman began his graduate work, including long-term demography, home ranges, food habits, prey populations, and habitat preferences. NSO must now rank among the most-studied organisms in the world.

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) was devised and adopted in 1994 to conserve old-growth forests on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest and their associated species, including Northern Spotted Owls. This plan evolved through a series of assessments (Thomas Committee, Gang of Four, and the Forest Ecosystem Management Team or FEMAT) that were led and populated by scientists.

The NWFP was designed to meet the needs of the NSO by retaining habitat--most of the remaining mature and old forest--and to restore contiguity where these forests had been fragmented by past logging. Near four million hectares of new reserves were created for conservation and added to an equal area of federal land already reserved by Congress (e.g., Wilderness and National Parks) and by resource management agencies (e.g., Research Natural Areas). Eventually, nearly 80% of the federal lands were reserved from commercial timber harvest.

The NWFP followed the fundamental premise of conservation biology--create a reserve system that protects existing habitat and restores additional suitable habitat for the species of interest. This was done on a grand scale, without even considering efforts to conserve NSO on private, tribal, and state trust lands.

A comprehensive review has just been completed of the scientific information that has emerged in the ten years since NSO was listed as Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. As a member of the review team I was dismayed by the findings. Overall the population of NSO is declining rapidly based on demographic studies currently in peer review for publication. Trends do vary within the geographic range of the NSO. Populations of NSO in Washington State appear particularly problematic; NSO have disappeared from many previously occupied sites, including prime undisturbed habitat in Olympic and Mount Rainier national parks.

The invading Barred Owl is implicated, although not yet convicted, in the decline and disappearances of the NSO. Barred Owls arrived in the Pacific Northwest a few decades ago from eastern North America after transiting Canada. Although the Barred Owl was present when the NSO was listed, many (most?) of us thought (hoped?) that it would prefer fragmented forests that were less suitable for NSO. Unfortunately, the Barred Owl appears attracted to the best of the intact old-growth forests, such as those found in low-elevation valley bottoms. When the larger, more aggressive Barred Owl appears near nest sites occupied by NSO, NSO typically leave. Barred Owl populations have increased dramatically in the last decade based on encounters during NSO surveys, which are the primary source of data on populations of Barred Owl.

Other significant threats to NSO have emerged in the last decade. The introduced West Nile Virus now occurs throughout the range of NSO. NSO is known to be susceptible to this disease. It is too early to know what role this pathogen eventually may play in NSO populations, although its role could be large.

Sudden Oak Death--the plant fungal pathogen Phytopthora ramorum--is another introduced species with potential for large impacts on the NSO. For at least seven years Sudden Oak Death repeatedly has been introduced repeatedly to the Pacific Coast on nursery stock imported from Europe. Sudden Oak Death is already known to infect more than 100 species of native herbs, shrubs, and trees, and I expect that hosts ultimately will number in the hundreds of species. Effects of Sudden Oak Death on infected species vary from foliar and twig infections to bark cankers, the most serious infections.

Among the species most lethally affected by Sudden Oak Death are several species of oak and tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus). Tanoak is an evergreen hardwood and dominant in the mixed evergreen forests of the Klamath- Siskiyou region of northern California and southwestern Oregon. In this region, tanoak is profoundly important as habitat for NSO and its prey. Complete mortality of tanoak has occurred in at least some native forests invaded by Sudden Oak Death; therefore, the potential may exist for significant modification of NSO habitat in the Klamath-Siskiyou region.

Stand-replacement fires also have caused extensive modification of habitat in portions of the NSO range. Uncharacteristic stand-replacement fires have removed forest on pine and mixed-conifer sites along the eastern margins of the NSO range; for example, 18 out of 24 NSO pairs on the Sisters District of the Deschutes National Forest have been impacted by such fires. Remaining forests of this type are in drastic need of fuel treatments to prevent further habitat loss.

So, what lessons emerge for me amongst this gloomy accounting of threats to the NSO? One lesson centers on the basic premise that preserving habitat is the key to conserving an endangered species. In the case of the NSO, protecting habitat--creating large ecological reserves--has not protected the conservation target from invasive species. Providing habitat is obviously an essential element of any conservation plan--but it may not be sufficient. Furthermore, active management is needed to sustain NSO habitat on sites with historically unnatural accumulations of forest fuels.

It also seems clear that during the twenty-first century we increasingly will face threats to biodiversity that cannot be addressed simply by preserving existing habitat. Foremost amongst these threats are invasive pests and pathogens, which I view as the greatest threats to native forest biodiversity--greater in their potential ecological impacts than clearcutting, for example, because they can literally extirpate native species.

Returning to my original point, habitat preservation has been the mantra of conservation biology. Experience with the Northern Spotted Owl makes clear that this may not always be sufficient. We need to constantly reexamine our premises and priorities, whether it is our traditional focus on species or ecological reserves as the primary tool for conservation. Conditions in the unreserved landscape--the matrix--are likely to be as important as the reserves themselves. And key events in biodiversity conservation are likely to occur far from our beloved reserves . . . such as on the docks and in the airports!

Jerry F. Franklin received the 2004 Edward T. LaRoe III Memorial Award from the Society for Conservation Biology for his leadership in translating principles of conservation biology into real-world conservation. He has engaged actively at the interface between science and policy in the United States and in Chile. His efforts contributed to significant improvements in forest management practices across millions of acres.

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO CRANES AND CONSERVATION