Deforestation, Oregon Style1  

By John Talberth2 and Erik Fernandez3

September 2015

Key points

• As the catastrophic impacts of climate change accelerate, reversing the loss and degradation of forest ecosystems has become an urgent global priority.

• While most decision makers focus on the loss and degradation of forests in developing countries, deforestation in the US is alive and well. What is happening on state and privately managed forestlands in Oregon exemplifies the situation in many other states.

• There are four key drivers of deforestation on these lands in Oregon: (1) overcutting (cutting at a rate in excess of forest regrowth); (2) conversion of natural forests to industrial tree plantations; (3) loss of forestlands to roads and other infrastructure, and (4) loss of long-term site productivity.

• As compared with the year 2000, Oregon has nearly 522,000 acres less forest cover on its state and privately managed forestlands in western Oregon today. This has primarily been the result of rapid clearcutting at rates that far exceed regrowth. Forest loss to clearcutting has exceeded forest regrowth by 45% between 2000 and 2013.

• Over 4 million acres of Oregon’s natural forests have been converted to industrial tree plantations. These plantations are as far from real forests as are industrial cornfields from native grasslands.

• The logging road network on state and private forestlands in Oregon has taken another 110,000 to 150,000 acres out of production.

• Landslides, erosion, and short rotations are depleting soils and soil productivity. Loss and degradation of soils through industrial forest practices is a slow, but irreversible process.

• Reforms of Oregon’s Forest Practices Act – for example, to limit the rate of clearcutting – are urgently needed to reverse deforestation and its consequences and contribute to climate stability.

                                                                                                               1 Generous support for this work was provided by the World Resources Institute, Global Forest Watch Program. 2 President and Senior Economist, Center for Sustainable Economy, jtalberth@sustainable-economy.org (503) 657-7336. 3 Wilderness Coordinator, Oregon Wild, ef@oregonwild.org, (541) 382 2616.

Global Forest Watch Report

 

  2

Deforestation in the US and Oregon is alive and well The international community of nations is firmly committed to halting and reversing loss and degradation of forestlands to achieve sustainable development goals. As succinctly stated by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development “[i]f we manage forests well they will give us goods and services that we cannot live without. If forests disappear we lose any prospect of sustainable development.”4 The imperative of halting deforestation and forest degradation has been articulated by dozens of international agreements dating from the 1992 Earth Summit. In 2007, these processes culminated in a landmark agreement on international forest policy and cooperation. A set of global objectives were part of the agreement, the first of which calls on all nations to “[r]everse the loss of forest cover worldwide through sustainable forest management, including protection, restoration, afforestation and reforestation, and increase efforts to prevent forest degradation.”5 Climate change has given new urgency to the task. Even if major new technological solutions like carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology are deployed at a large scale, we still need to halt deforestation to stay below the critical +2°C threshold most scientists believe is the maximum the Earth can tolerate before the worst effects of warming manifest.

In a future in which CCS technology becomes available and cost-effective on a large scale, limiting global temperature rise to +2°C requires reducing deforestation to near zero by 2030. Not many models project that it’s possible to limit warming to +2°C without CCS technology, but those that do require not only stopping deforestation altogether, but reversing it to create a massive terrestrial carbon sink of regrowing forest vegetation by 2030.6

Deforestation and forest degradation is not just a developing world issue. It is alive and well in the US. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quantified the forests lost to urban development over the past three decades. The results were alarming. Over the 25-year period been 1982 and 2007 the US lost 17,083,500 acres of forestland to development.7 This is a bit bigger than the state of West Virginia. But paving over once productive forests for suburban sprawl is just one way the US is losing forests. There are many other drivers including clearcutting at rates that exceed forest regrowth, the conversion of real forests into tree plantations, logging roads, and loss of long-term productivity. Industrial forest practices – such as short rotation clearcutting, chemical spraying, highly mechanized processes, and management to                                                                                                                4 Mayers, James. 2014. “Forests in the sustainable development goals.” Biores (8)3. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Develoment. Available online at: http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/forests-in-the-sustainable-development-goals. 5 United Nations Forum on Forests. 2007. Report of the seventh session (24February 2206 and 16 to 27 April 2007). Non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests. Economic and Social Council, Official records 2007. Supplement No. 22. 6 Busch, Jonah. 2014. Halting and Reversing Deforestation Critical to +2° Climate Target. Center for Global Development blog series. Available online at: http://www.cgdev.org/blog/halting-and-reversing-deforestation-critical-climate-target. 7 Kramer, Melissa. 2013. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Among Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality. Second Edition. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sustainable Communities.

  3  

maximize short term returns to investors – chip away at forest cover both in the short and long term through all these mechanisms. Management of state and private forestlands in Oregon exemplifies the problem unfolding in many other states and parts of the world. Drivers and extent of deforestation in Oregon

Center for Sustainable Economy (CSE) and Oregon Wild teamed up to complete an analysis of deforestation trends in Oregon focusing on the first driver – rapid clearcutting – since the other three are well established in the literature already while this factor has been infrequently addressed and, so far, ignored altogether by policy-makers. The following section provides an analysis of rapid clearcutting and its effects on forest cover as well as a synopsis of some key research related to the other three deforestation drives in play. Rapid clearcutting is causing a net loss of forest cover Deforestation occurs when forest cover is lost at a rate that exceeds forest regrowth. Clearcutting is the process of eliminating forest cover altogether and then replanting it with seedlings engineered for attributes like faster growth, straighter trunks, and more disease resistance.8 When forests are replanted they take time – perhaps forever if the site is badly damaged – to regain the attributes of what was lost. But at minimum, and in accordance with widely accepted definitions, forests can be said to be reestablished once the forest canopy covers 30% of the ground9 as seen from the air with trees that are at least 5 meters in height.10 Satellite imagery is now readily available and at a high enough resolution and reliability that long term trends using this minimum forest cover definition can be examined in detail from space. The World Resources Institute (WRI), through its Global Forest Watch (GFW) Program, hosts a platform enabling users to download and analyze Landsat-based forest change data dating back to 2001.11 Each pixel in the dataset measures an area of thirty by thirty meters, so the resolution is quite good. CSE and Oregon Wild used these data to analyze the pattern of forest change on state and private forestlands in western Oregon from 2001 to 2013. After removing federal lands from the analysis as well as forest cover loss due to wildfire, we calculated the area of forest loss vs. forest gain on a subwatershed basis using fifth order HUC watershed classifications. We also calculated the percentage of each subwatershed affected by clear-cutting during that time period. The results appear in the map provided in Appendix 1 and the detailed data table provided in Appendix 2. Key results are as follows:                                                                                                                8 See, e.g. the description of trees engineered for Plum Creek Timberlands, LP, Oregon’s largest timberland owner: http://www.plumcreek.com/working-forests/forest-regeneration/seedlings/seedling-quality. 9 See, e.g. the discussion from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on forest definitions: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=46. 10 Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R. Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L. Chini, C. O. Justice, and J. R. G. Townshend. 2013. “High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change.” Science 342 (15 November): 850–53. Data available on-line from: http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest. 11 WRI’s Global Forest Watch portal can be accessed here: http://www.globalforestwatch.org

  4

• As compared with the year 2000, western Oregon now has approximately 522,000 fewer

acres of forest cover on state and private forestlands due to rapid rates of clearcutting. Between 2000 and 2013, 1.48 million acres were clearcut and thus stripped of forest cover while 1.02 million acres regained forest cover status as plantations matured. This translates into a net loss of 34,797 acres each year. The 522,000-acre figure for 2015 is an estimate based on extending this rate of loss from 2013 to the present.

• A key measure of sustainable forest policy in Oregon is maintenance of forest cover. However, overcutting on state and private lands in western Oregon is undermining attainment of that goal. The aggregate rate of overcutting for state and private lands in western Oregon between 2000 and 2013 is 45% - meaning that forest loss due to clearcutting exceeded forest regrowth by that percent.

• The most concentrated areas of net forest cover loss were in northwestern Oregon in the coast range (Figure 1), east of Coos Bay, and in foothills of the Cascades from Eugene to Estacada. In terms of acreage, the five subwatersheds most affected by net forest cover loss were the Youngs River (near the mouth of the Columbia,17,327 acres lost), Middle Fork Coquille (17,212 acres lost), Necanicum River (16,924 acres lost), Trask River (15,552 acres lost) and the Wilson River (15,168 lost).

• Rapid clearcutting has affected significant portions of most non-federal western Oregon watersheds, complicating efforts to maintain cool water temperatures and provide habitat for species that need interior forest conditions. Forty-five subwatersheds have been clearcut by 20% or more in the past 15 years (Appendix 1).

Figure 1: Forest Cover Loss, Northwest Oregon 2000 – 2013

(Areas shaded pink have been clearcut during this time frame)

  5  

Conversion of real forests into tree plantations Most people are instinctively reassured by the claim that “we replant” – a slogan pasted all along highways most impacted by industrial clearcutting in Oregon. But what is replanted does not always correlate with reestablishment of a forest. In fact it almost never does. In a nutshell, the establishment of a tree plantation “indicates the creation of an ecologically simplified forest.”12 Industrial tree plantations lack most of the attributes healthy, functioning Oregon forests possess including (a) rich and diverse herbaceous cover on the forest floor and an abundant hardwood component, especially near streams; (b) vertical diversity, meaning trees of different heights; (c) horizontal diversity, meaning trees and plants of different species and genetic groups; (d) biological legacy in the form of large downed logs and snags in various stages of decay; (e) deep, loose soils rich with organic material; (e) interiors shielded from sunlight and wind and (f) habitat that supports over 1,100 species.13 Much of natural forests’ diversity comes from allowing natural disturbances to run their course. Clearcutting, spraying of chemical herbicides, fires suppression and short rotations are all investments in keeping these plantations in a biologically impoverished state. Today in western Oregon alone, there are over 4 million acres of these industrial tree plantations.14 By any ecological measure of forest integrity these are not really forests at all. They resemble forests as much as industrial corn crops resemble native grasslands. As long as these plantations continue to be managed for industrial timber production - cut over again and again at rotation ages that are now approaching 25 years - they will never have a chance to develop the characteristics of healthy, functioning forests. Logging roads take land out of production The 201,000 miles of roads in Oregon are, combined, long enough to stretch around the Earth eight times.15 Much of that mileage consists of logging roads. At an average road density of 3 to 5 miles (and it is sometimes greater than 7) for every square mile that’s 58,000 to 97,000 miles on state and private forestlands alone. Geographic Information System (GIS) data corroborate this range and estimate 67,000 miles.16 The average width of a standard logging road is 14 feet. There are standard tables that are used to convert width to acreage affected. For every mile of a

                                                                                                               12 According to the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) at: http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/state_forests/frp/crt2ind12.aspx. 13 There are approximately 1,105 species that are closely associated with late successional forests within the range of the northern spotted that depend on complex forest structures that do not exist in managed tree plantations. See: FEMAT. 1993. 14 ODF, note 12, updated to account for trends since 2000. 15 Based on a GIS analysis of roadways regardless of current access status. 16 Also based on current GIS inventory after subtracting federal lands and urban areas.

This aerial photo shows a dense network of logging roads and hillsides stripped of forest cover.

  6

14-foot wide logging road, 1.7 acres of land are taken out of production. This means that the logging road network on state and private forestlands in Oregon has taken 110,000 to 150,000 acres out of production. Every new logging road proposed – like the 600 additional miles included in the BLM’s proposed Resource Management Plan for Western Oregon –further adds to the impacts of deforestation caused by other drivers.17 Loss of long-term site productivity Throughout history, many fallen civilizations committed “ecological suicide” by failing to protect their soils.18 Tragically, industrial forest practices in Oregon are following the same imprudent path. As soils are lost, damaged, and deprived of nutrients through current forest practices, the ability of the landscape to regenerate forest cover inexorably diminishes over time. This loss of site productivity is a slow, but significant factor in long-term deforestation. Landslides are a dramatic illustration of the problem. Landslides are “a significant natural hazard in Oregon and cause millions of dollars in damages annually.”19 To address and understand the risk, the state maintains an inventory of existing landslides to make information accessible to anyone and to facilitate research on their causes. As of this writing, there are 37,226 landslide polygons in the database.20 Industrial forest practices are a prime culprit. Maintenance of strong root systems is an important factor in stabilizing soils. Clearcutting reduces the strength of these root systems dramatically, and thus is a major factor in increased landslide risk.21 Logging roads channel water runoff and result in debris torrents that can travel many miles downstream, pick up momentum, and cause widespread destruction.22 Studies indicate that clearcuts exhibit landslide rates up to 20 times higher than the background rate. Near logging roads, landslide rates are up to 300 times higher than forested areas.

                                                                                                               17 Details of the BLM’s proposal are available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/deis.php. 18 Diamond, Jared. 1999. Guns Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. 19 Wang, Y., Summers, R. D., and Hofmeister, R. J., 2002. Landslide loss estimation pilot project in Oregon: Portland, Oreg., Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open-File Report O-02- 05, 23 p. 20 Burns, William J. and Rudie J. Watzig. SLIDO-3.0: Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon (SLIDO). Release 3.0. Salem, OR: Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 21 Schmidt, K.M, J. J. Roering, J.D. Stock, W.E. Dietrich, D.R. Montgomery and T. Schaub. 2001. “The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range.” Can. Geotech. J (38): 995-1024. 22 Swanson, F. J., J. L. Clayton, W. F. Megahan and G. Bush. 1989. “Erosional processes and long-term site productivity,” pp. 67-81 in Maintaining the Long-Term Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems. D. A. Perry, R. Meurisse, B. Thomas, R. Miller, J. Boyle, J. Means, C.R. Perry, R. F. Powers, eds. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.

Industrial forest practices degrade soil productivity, cause landslides, and contribute to long-term deforestation.

  7  

But landslides are not the only problem. Short rotation clearcutting is another. With rotations (years between clearcutting on the same site) dropping as low as 25 years, there is not enough time for soil nutrients and structure to be rebuilt. Over time, both the structure and the nutrient composition of the soil diminish and impede regrowth. Repeated clearcutting also compacts soils and deprives them of moisture and nutrients through damaged roots, restricted root growth, a loss of beneficial soil microorganisms and mycorrhizal fungi, and reduced water infiltration.23 Why Oregon’s Forest Practices Act needs deep reforms The accelerated pace of deforestation in Oregon underscores the urgent need for reform of Oregon’s Forest Practices Act. CSE, Oregon Wild and our partners are working to achieve four major clusters of reform. These include: 1. Forest diversity standards: This would entail greater restrictions on the timing, size and

placement of clearcuts to reduce fragmentation and maintain forest cover as well as new standards for retention of "biological legacies" such as residual trees, snags, and downed logs. Keeping the rate of logging at or below the rate of forest regrowth is essential.

2. Water resource protection standards: All streams and streamcourses should be protected with

no-cut buffers adequate to protect water quality, temperature, and flow and provide habitat and migration corridors for fish and wildlife species that depend on aquatic ecosystems. Clearcutting should not take place at all in watersheds that provide domestic drinking water, coldwater fish habitat, or on steep, unstable soils prone to landslides.

3. Economic incentives: Timber taxes unwisely rescinded in 1999 should be reinstated to help

cover the costs unsustainable logging imposes on public finances. Harmful logging practices should be taxed at the highest rate. Foresters who truly implement sustainable forest practices and mill their wood in the state should be exempted from these taxes and instead given subsidies like payments for ecosystem services and carbon storage and preferential treatment in public contracting and procurement. Conservation easements, parks, and protected area acquisitions should be ramped up to provide those who want to protect their forests the means to do so.

4. Public participation and enforcement: The ability of the State Forester to approve or

disapprove of major logging operations should be reinstated. Cynically, this authority was rolled back in 2003 to help shield timber companies and the State Forester from lawsuits over endangered salmon and other imperiled species. Forest management plans demonstrating a commitment to sustainability should be required for all major timberland owners. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) should be empowered to authorize or disapprove logging operations that affect water resources. All stakeholders should have the right to challenge logging operations detrimental to public health and their communities and negotiate changes before logging commences.

                                                                                                               23 Natural Resources Defense Council. End of the Road: The Adverse Ecological Impacts of Roads and Logging. A Compilation of Independently Reviewed Research. Available online at: http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/roads/chap5.asp#14.

  8

With these reforms in place, the OFPA can move closer to internationally accepted standards for sustainable forestry and help the timber industry become a driver for prosperity of people, communities, and other species with whom we share this landscape.

For more information about CSE and our work on forests please visit: www.sustainable-economy.org and click on

our Wild and Working Forests Program. You can also contact us by mail and phone at Center for Sustainable Economy, 16869 SW 65th Avenue, Suite 493, Lake Oswego, OR 97035-7865, (503) 657-7336

  9  

Appendix 1

MiddleColumbia-Lake

Wallula

Necanicum

LowerColumbia

LowerColumbia-Clatskanie

Klickitat

MiddleColumbia-Hood

Nehalem

LowerWillamette

LowerColumbia-Sandy

Tualatin

LowerDeschutes

LowerJohnDay

Clackamas

Yamhill

Molalla-PuddingMiddleWillamette

Trout

LowerCrooked

UpperCrooked

UpperWillamette

UpperDeschutes

McKenzie

Siltcoos

MiddleFork

WillametteSouth Fork

Crooked

UpperDeschutesCoos

NorthUmpqua

SummerLake

Williamson

Coquille

LakeAbert

Sixes

UpperKlamath

Lake

UpperRogue

Sprague

ChetcoGooseLake

LostRiver

Butte

Illinois

14 11

13

10

812

86

9

84

81

87

83

89 85

7290 88

69582

97 9673

9874

99

807

94 5

75

76393

644

58 78

792

6592

7169

1

59

77

6867

91 60 62

6661

7063107

103

57

104 56108

5545

4634

106

43

44105 53100

48

5232102101

47

42

111113

54

3150

112 51

3533

116

11449

109

30110

40

38

122

120115

29

121

39

4136

123 119 22

23125

12424

28118

117

151 2027

150

21

25152 148 147

17

26156

149154

145 15

128

19127

146129

155

131 126

160

153

130

161159

132142

144

143

134157

141

166

158

133162 136140

139 135163

137138 170

171

164

168 167188187

190

186165172

189

169185 176

184191200

198177 175

203173

202

183

201

196174182197

181

209194 180

193179

206210

204

205195

211

192

214 213178

212208207

Percent Non Federal Land Clear-Cutby Watershed 2000-2013

Based on 5th Field Watersheds

4th Field Watersheds

Federal and Other Lands

0% 42%

% of Watershed Clear-Cut

µ

Map Notes:Percentages are calculated basedon the portion of each watershedthat is non-federal lands. Data Sources include:BLM, Oregon Wild, ESRI, andGlobal Forest Watch.

These ID numbers correspondto the watershed names anddetailed info accompanyingthis map.

  10

Appendix 2, page 1

Forest Loss and Gain based by 5th Field Watershed in Western OregonThis analysis excludes Federal Lands

Map Label Watershed NameTotal watershed

acres (non federal)Acres of

forest gainAcres of

forest lossNet change

(acres)% Clearcut 2000-2013

104 Middle Siletz River 41,467 13,282 17,515 -4,233 42.2%111 Drift Creek 14,550 1,234 5,741 -4,507 39.5%167 South Fork Rogue River 32,428 2,646 12,513 -9,867 38.6%166 Upper Rogue River 15,549 1,389 5,705 -4,316 36.7%22 Little Fall Creek 28,850 4,518 10,390 -5,873 36.0%

170 Elk Creek-Rogue River 35,234 1,384 12,273 -10,889 34.8%190 Lobster Creek 15,984 1,281 5,241 -3,960 32.8%39 McKenzie River-Quartz Creek 23,267 3,123 7,550 -4,427 32.4%84 Necanicum River 87,538 10,999 27,923 -16,924 31.9%

159 East Fork Coquille River 40,390 7,023 12,750 -5,727 31.6%157 Middle Fork Coquille River 136,250 25,239 42,451 -17,212 31.2%160 North Fork Coquille River 61,619 13,962 18,304 -4,343 29.7%51 Wiley Creek 39,131 5,188 11,290 -6,102 28.9%77 Middle Clackamas River 8,791 907 2,530 -1,623 28.8%

103 Upper Siletz River 32,313 5,848 9,258 -3,410 28.7%50 South Santiam River-Foster Reservoir 36,516 6,004 10,447 -4,443 28.6%

163 Sixes River 61,703 7,305 17,046 -9,741 27.6%109 Upper Alsea River 37,360 6,891 10,035 -3,145 26.9%60 Willamina Creek 37,746 6,449 9,934 -3,486 26.3%

117 Upper Siuslaw River 70,962 15,987 18,592 -2,605 26.2%40 Mohawk River 88,262 17,192 22,861 -5,669 25.9%36 Horse Creek 1,640 169 424 -254 25.8%

139 West Fork Cow Creek 25,913 1,465 6,673 -5,209 25.8%74 Scoggins Creek 83,232 11,298 21,387 -10,089 25.7%

148 Umpqua River-Sawyers Rapids 40,478 7,178 10,314 -3,137 25.5%198 Briggs Creek 2,366 169 595 -426 25.2%12 Youngs River 134,728 16,084 33,411 -17,327 24.8%85 Upper Nehalem River 137,988 29,814 32,872 -3,058 23.8%88 Salmonberry River 45,549 4,931 10,819 -5,887 23.8%26 Mosby Creek 44,215 2,951 10,420 -7,469 23.6%

169 Big Butte Creek 70,737 7,748 16,605 -8,857 23.5%37 South Fork McKenzie River 3,146 357 726 -369 23.1%

120 Lake Creek 38,035 4,378 8,773 -4,394 23.1%118 Wolf Creek 21,165 6,313 4,860 1,453 23.0%70 Upper Molalla River 83,646 6,585 19,194 -12,610 22.9%59 Upper South Yamhill River 80,379 13,271 18,373 -5,102 22.9%

154 Millicoma River 85,683 13,157 18,709 -5,553 21.8%86 Middle Nehalem River 112,464 22,133 24,041 -1,908 21.4%25 Row River 71,431 11,015 15,193 -4,178 21.3%78 Eagle Creek 37,252 3,885 7,894 -4,008 21.2%52 Crabtree Creek 82,014 7,960 17,321 -9,362 21.1%

158 South Fork Coquille River 109,890 19,032 23,147 -4,115 21.1%107 Salmon River-Siletz River 33,371 4,748 6,855 -2,106 20.5%150 Upper Smith River 38,800 5,040 7,886 -2,846 20.3%45 Little North Santiam River 22,432 2,196 4,530 -2,334 20.2%

147 Elk Creek 142,027 27,747 28,400 -654 20.0%153 South Fork Coos River 106,031 17,088 20,969 -3,880 19.8%94 Trask River 103,158 4,459 20,011 -15,552 19.4%

112 Lower Alsea River 45,287 5,204 8,782 -3,578 19.4%89 North Fork of Nehalem River 62,181 7,139 12,055 -4,916 19.4%

149 Mill Creek-Lower Umpqua River 61,162 7,401 11,731 -4,330 19.2%23 Fall Creek 24,616 4,016 4,694 -678 19.1%

171 Trail Creek 16,264 307 3,057 -2,751 18.8%106 Lower Siletz River 97,044 18,252 18,012 240 18.6%41 Lower McKenzie River 132,165 15,416 24,525 -9,109 18.6%

137 Upper Cow Creek 13,396 1,031 2,431 -1,400 18.1%27 Upper Coast Fork Willamette River 72,527 12,839 12,811 28 17.7%9 Clatskanie River 60,665 8,734 10,672 -1,938 17.6%

16 Hills Creek 1,003 166 176 -9 17.5%

  11  

Appendix 2, page 2

Forest Loss and Gain based by 5th Field Watershed in Western OregonThis analysis excludes Federal Lands

Map Label Watershed NameTotal watershed

acres (non federal)Acres of

forest gainAcres of

forest lossNet change

(acres)% Clearcut 2000-2013

133 Jackson Creek 6,140 595 1,067 -471 17.4%140 Lower Cow Creek 61,753 7,610 10,715 -3,105 17.4%93 Tillamook River 38,458 3,585 6,664 -3,078 17.3%

130 Little River 48,945 2,170 8,435 -6,265 17.2%145 Upper Umpqua River 111,056 10,660 19,035 -8,375 17.1%61 Mill Creek-South Yamhill River 21,818 2,743 3,734 -992 17.1%

146 Calapooya Creek 145,698 14,799 24,827 -10,028 17.0%13 Big Creek 74,710 8,190 12,696 -4,507 17.0%21 Middle Fork Willamette River-Lookout Point Reservoir 40,348 3,652 6,854 -3,202 17.0%

119 Wildcat Creek 20,882 6,122 3,500 2,622 16.8%138 Middle Cow Creek 67,508 4,562 11,152 -6,590 16.5%110 Five Rivers-Lobster Creek 14,390 1,428 2,377 -949 16.5%95 Wilson River 118,974 3,997 19,166 -15,168 16.1%87 Lower Nehalem River 113,721 14,852 18,060 -3,208 15.9%

125 Siltcoos River-Tahkenitch Creek Frontal 48,300 9,130 7,654 1,475 15.8%203 Hunter Creek 17,687 2,465 2,769 -305 15.7%99 Spring Creek-Sand Lake-Neskowin Creek Frontal 38,591 2,034 5,996 -3,962 15.5%

142 Myrtle Creek 45,105 3,704 6,948 -3,245 15.4%108 Devils Lake-Moolack Frontal 38,880 5,174 5,938 -764 15.3%105 Rock Creek-Siletz River 26,124 3,218 3,982 -764 15.2%48 Quartzville Creek 42,159 4,003 6,350 -2,347 15.1%54 South Santiam River-Hamilton Creek 113,419 15,530 16,880 -1,351 14.9%91 Little Nestucca River 20,248 2,424 2,933 -509 14.5%

135 Elk Creek-South Umpqua 19,863 1,062 2,869 -1,806 14.4%73 Gales Creek 60,300 6,526 8,664 -2,138 14.4%

126 Middle North Umpqua River 12,578 859 1,767 -908 14.0%34 Luckiamute River 192,872 30,594 26,529 4,066 13.8%10 Plympton Creek 31,506 2,105 4,291 -2,186 13.6%

180 Little Applegate River 19,895 1,201 2,672 -1,471 13.4%201 Chetco River 39,285 4,775 5,222 -447 13.3%186 Grave Creek 54,386 1,336 7,224 -5,889 13.3%44 Middle North Santiam River 49,824 3,614 6,578 -2,964 13.2%

136 South Umpqua River 80,535 4,274 10,603 -6,328 13.2%49 South Santiam River 33,523 1,715 4,397 -2,682 13.1%

134 Middle South Umpqua River-Dumont Creek 12,559 700 1,635 -935 13.0%64 North Yamhill River 100,682 10,248 13,093 -2,845 13.0%33 Marys River 175,383 17,696 22,434 -4,738 12.8%

143 Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek 75,744 4,670 9,596 -4,926 12.7%129 Rock Creek-North Umpqua River 34,228 1,405 4,243 -2,838 12.4%24 Lower Middle Fork of Willamette River 32,241 2,876 3,978 -1,101 12.3%53 Thomas Creek 79,663 5,445 9,795 -4,351 12.3%

197 Illinois River-Josephine Creek 10,937 245 1,325 -1,079 12.1%168 Rogue River-Lost Creek 25,709 2,550 3,112 -562 12.1%124 Lower Siuslaw River 62,471 7,356 7,544 -188 12.1%90 Lower Nehalem River-Cook Creek 70,061 2,496 8,368 -5,873 11.9%

100 Upper Yaquina River 52,711 7,123 6,164 959 11.7%202 Pistol River 27,925 4,055 3,251 803 11.6%165 Humbug Mountain-Nesika Beach Frontal 47,778 4,029 5,548 -1,519 11.6%92 Nestucca River 58,852 5,156 6,694 -1,539 11.4%

101 Big Elk Creek 38,063 3,885 4,211 -326 11.1%114 Yachats River 6,435 782 711 71 11.0%162 New River Frontal 95,020 11,144 10,471 673 11.0%31 Calapooia River 171,102 15,229 18,428 -3,199 10.8%

155 Coos Bay Frontal 173,258 22,930 18,552 4,378 10.7%71 Lower Molalla River 88,865 4,167 9,501 -5,334 10.7%

123 North Fork Siuslaw River 10,289 718 1,088 -370 10.6%35 Upper McKenzie River 6,515 255 688 -432 10.6%

196 Deer Creek 34,471 1,017 3,553 -2,535 10.3%8 Beaver Creek-Columbia River 97,431 6,505 10,037 -3,531 10.3%

  12

Appendix 2, page 3

Forest Loss and Gain based by 5th Field Watershed in Western OregonThis analysis excludes Federal Lands

Map Label Watershed NameTotal watershed

acres (non federal)Acres of

forest gainAcres of

forest lossNet change

(acres)% Clearcut 2000-2013

161 Lower Coquille River 109,342 17,341 11,225 6,116 10.3%191 Lower Rogue River 35,955 2,795 3,630 -835 10.1%199 Indigo Creek 27 0 3 -3 10.0%72 Dairy Creek 141,503 13,502 14,048 -546 9.9%

151 Lower Smith River-Lower Umpqua River 61,602 9,314 5,882 3,431 9.5%67 Butte Creek-Pudding River 66,712 3,515 6,101 -2,586 9.1%29 Long Tom River 241,107 26,134 21,884 4,250 9.1%2 Zigzag River 908 19 82 -63 9.0%

113 Beaver Creek-Waldport Bay 21,140 1,930 1,874 56 8.9%122 Indian Creek-Lake Creek 5,268 833 457 376 8.7%81 Scappoose Creek 116,868 10,211 10,010 201 8.6%97 Miami River 23,015 1,100 1,964 -864 8.5%28 Lower Coast Fork Willamette River 83,760 6,102 7,119 -1,017 8.5%66 Abiqua Creek-Pudding River 176,395 11,336 13,922 -2,587 7.9%4 Middle Sandy River 26,998 1,487 2,105 -618 7.8%

193 Althouse Creek 10,714 120 831 -711 7.8%116 Big Creek-Vingie Creek 3,492 212 264 -52 7.6%209 Jenny Creek 74,794 0 5,536 -5,536 7.4%102 Lower Yaquina River 47,232 4,574 3,477 1,097 7.4%42 Upper North Santiam River 11,829 441 850 -409 7.2%

187 Rogue River-Horseshoe Bend 4,061 103 289 -186 7.1%3 Upper Sandy River 2,667 104 188 -84 7.0%

182 Williams Creek 24,745 373 1,700 -1,327 6.9%20 North Fork of Middle Fork Willamette River 3,638 220 250 -29 6.9%7 Lower Sandy River 39,528 1,220 2,685 -1,465 6.8%

121 Deadwood Creek 7,188 332 479 -147 6.7%62 Lower South Yamhill River 74,520 4,818 4,780 38 6.4%

194 Sucker Creek 12,560 185 786 -601 6.3%156 Lakeside Frontal 54,933 6,664 3,426 3,238 6.2%184 Rogue River-Hellgate Canyon 26,000 323 1,601 -1,278 6.2%179 Applegate River-McKee Bridge 6,852 350 417 -67 6.1%204 Cape Ferrelo Frontal 39,188 4,006 2,368 1,638 6.0%141 Middle South Umpqua River 51,743 979 3,111 -2,132 6.0%15 Upper Middle Fork Willamette River 7,078 1,608 420 1,188 5.9%

176 Evans Creek 82,985 5,206 4,853 354 5.8%79 Lower Clackamas River 111,107 2,917 6,481 -3,564 5.8%

200 Illinois River-Lawson Creek 2,374 29 138 -109 5.8%56 Rickreall Creek 119,777 6,061 6,929 -868 5.8%

195 West Fork Illinois River 27,899 773 1,597 -824 5.7%18 Salmon Creek 2,058 78 111 -32 5.4%43 Detroit Reservoir-Blow Out Divide Creek 16,218 466 835 -369 5.1%63 Salt Creek-South Yamhill River 62,574 1,903 3,006 -1,103 4.8%

181 Middle Applegate River 33,644 454 1,562 -1,108 4.6%183 Lower Applegate River 51,329 449 2,320 -1,871 4.5%185 Jumpoff Joe Creek 48,193 637 2,156 -1,519 4.5%131 Lower North Umpqua River 93,892 2,956 4,116 -1,160 4.4%164 Elk River 13,365 833 581 252 4.3%152 Lower Umpqua River 52,752 4,253 2,105 2,148 4.0%173 Little Butte Creek 123,933 4,984 4,743 240 3.8%210 Klamath River-Iron Gate Reservoir 28,224 927 1,033 -106 3.7%

5 Bull Run River 10,152 256 364 -109 3.6%47 Middle Santiam River 23,855 1,133 856 278 3.6%68 Rock Creek-Pudding River 53,237 1,084 1,798 -714 3.4%19 Hills Creek Reservoir 17,238 2,672 573 2,099 3.3%

205 Winchuck River 13,012 416 429 -13 3.3%115 Mercer Lake Frontal 11,813 395 380 15 3.2%98 Tillamook Bay 21,065 193 669 -475 3.2%

189 Rogue River-Shasta Costa Creek 1,500 40 47 -7 3.1%144 Lower South Umpqua River 106,023 1,736 3,253 -1,517 3.1%

  13  

Appendix 2, page 4

Forest Loss and Gain based by 5th Field Watershed in Western OregonThis analysis excludes Federal Lands

Map Label Watershed NameTotal watershed

acres (non federal)Acres of

forest gainAcres of

forest lossNet change

(acres)% Clearcut 2000-2013

46 Lower North Santiam River 71,234 1,538 2,120 -581 3.0%1 Salmon River 4,374 56 123 -68 2.8%

178 Upper Applegate River 13,411 374 353 21 2.6%192 East Fork Illinois River 16,233 142 422 -280 2.6%75 Rock Creek-Tualatin River 96,537 1,603 2,428 -824 2.5%

177 Rogue River-Grants Pass 41,161 174 1,034 -860 2.5%58 Abernethy Creek 86,444 1,001 2,017 -1,016 2.3%

174 Bear Creek 182,277 2,176 4,099 -1,923 2.2%175 Rogue River-Gold Hill 102,904 2,102 2,217 -115 2.2%96 Kilchis River 38,606 342 791 -450 2.0%57 Willamette River-Chehalem Creek 172,235 1,315 3,051 -1,736 1.8%65 Yamhill River 64,052 580 1,049 -469 1.6%38 Blue River 3,231 59 53 6 1.6%

128 Canton Creek 9,509 180 153 26 1.6%55 Mill Creek-Willamette River 71,893 856 1,122 -266 1.6%

132 Upper South Umpqua River 253 0 4 -4 1.5%30 Muddy Creek 248,319 2,410 3,690 -1,279 1.5%

127 Steamboat Creek 1,052 7 16 -9 1.5%6 Columbia Gorge Tributary 60,312 253 893 -640 1.5%

172 Rogue River-Shady Cove 51,798 156 719 -563 1.4%76 Lower Tualatin River 61,578 319 830 -510 1.3%32 Oak Creek 104,349 1,023 1,239 -216 1.2%

188 Rogue River-Stair Creek 677 25 5 19 0.8%69 Senecal Creek-Mill Creek 34,079 101 225 -124 0.7%80 Johnson Creek 60,131 109 338 -229 0.6%

211 Cottonwood Creek 36,314 154 129 25 0.4%212 Beaver Creek 37,726 5 39 -34 0.1%82 Columbia Slough-Willamette River 78,004 99 79 20 0.1%

207 North Fork Smith River 43,820 0 9 -9 0.0%83 Columbia River-Hayden Island 18,729 17 2 15 0.0%

213 China Peak 22,587 0 0 0 0.0%208 Middle Fork Smith River 14,471 0 0 0 0.0%214 Indian Creek 35,899 0 0 0 0.0%11 Columbia River-Cathlamet Channel 43,933 0 0 0 0.0%14 Columbia River-Baker Bay 96,287 1 0 1 0.0%17 Salt Creek-Willamette River 100 11 0 11 0.0%

206 Jenny Creek 74,794 10,642 0 10,642 0.0%Total: 11,588,764 1,023,845 1,476,209 -452,364