Global Forest Watch Report
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, [email protected]
(503) 657-7336.
3 Wilderness Coordinator, Oregon Wild, [email protected], (541) 382 2616.
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
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/bridgesnews/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-reversingdeforestation-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.
4
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:
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/seedlingquality.
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
8
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.
This aerial photo shows a dense network of logging
roads and hillsides stripped of forest cover.
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
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.
12
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
Industrial forest practices degrade soil productivity, cause
landslides, and contribute to long-term deforestation.
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.
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 O02- 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.
17
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.
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.
23
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
Percent Non Federal Land Clear-Cut
by Watershed 2000-2013
Based on 5th Field Watersheds
11
14
Lower 13
Columbia
10
9
12
8
Necanicum
Lower
Columbia-Clatskanie
86
87
84
Nehalem
89
81
88
90
72
Lower
Willamette
73
97
96
95
Tualatin
98
94
93
99
76
65
Yamhill
60
42%
107
62
101
46
47
54
114
31
40
121
120
124
28
21
20
25
27
148
23
147
26
155
146
129
153
131
North
Umpqua
159
143
Coquille
162
141
157
163
138
187
132
142
Upper
Rogue
134
133
136
140
139
Sixes
137
170
186
189
190
Illinois
184
198
203
172
176
177
4th Field Watersheds
166
168
171
185
200
167
Federal and Other LandsLake
Sprague
169
175
173
183
196
202
Chetco
197
201
182
192 194
193
181
179
174
180
209
195
205
208 206
207
214 213
Williamson
135
188
204
Summer
Lake
144
160
191
Upper
Deschutes
128
126
130
165
Upper
Crooked
South Fork
Crooked
15
145
Upper
Deschutes
17
127
149
154
McKenzie
19
156
Coos
164
36
Middle
Fork
Willamette
117
150
151
158
41
22
24
Lower
Crooked
38
39
125
Siltcoos
161
49
29
119
152
35
51
30
118
µ
48
50
122
115
Trout
42
43
52
32
109
112
110
123
44
53
33
111
116
Lower
Deschutes
45
56
Upper
Willamette
100
102
2
Clackamas
70
66
34
105
113
3
Middle
Molalla-Pudding
Willamette 55
104 103
106
108
78
68
67
63
1
71
57
61
4
77
69
59
Lower
John
Day
5
79
58
92
0%
80
64
91
83
7
82
75
74
% of Watershed Clear-Cut
Middle
Columbia-Lake
These ID numbers correspond
Klickitat
Lowerto the watershed namesWallula
and
Columbia-Sandy
detailed infoMiddle
accompanying
6
this map.
Columbia-Hood
85
178
212
211
210
Abert
Upper
Map
Notes:
Klamath
Percentages
are calculated based
Lake
on the portion of each watershed
Lostlands.
that is non-federal
Goose
River
Data Sources include:
Lake
BLM, Oregon Wild, ESRI, and
Butte
Global Forest Watch.
10
Appendix 2, page 1
Forest Loss and Gain based by 5th Field Watershed in Western Oregon
This analysis excludes Federal Lands
Map Label
104
111
167
166
22
170
190
39
84
159
157
160
51
77
103
50
163
109
60
117
40
36
139
74
148
198
12
85
88
26
169
37
120
118
70
59
154
86
25
78
52
158
107
150
45
147
153
94
112
89
149
23
171
106
41
137
27
9
16
Watershed Name
Middle Siletz River
Drift Creek
South Fork Rogue River
Upper Rogue River
Little Fall Creek
Elk Creek-Rogue River
Lobster Creek
McKenzie River-Quartz Creek
Necanicum River
East Fork Coquille River
Middle Fork Coquille River
North Fork Coquille River
Wiley Creek
Middle Clackamas River
Upper Siletz River
South Santiam River-Foster Reservoir
Sixes River
Upper Alsea River
Willamina Creek
Upper Siuslaw River
Mohawk River
Horse Creek
West Fork Cow Creek
Scoggins Creek
Umpqua River-Sawyers Rapids
Briggs Creek
Youngs River
Upper Nehalem River
Salmonberry River
Mosby Creek
Big Butte Creek
South Fork McKenzie River
Lake Creek
Wolf Creek
Upper Molalla River
Upper South Yamhill River
Millicoma River
Middle Nehalem River
Row River
Eagle Creek
Crabtree Creek
South Fork Coquille River
Salmon River-Siletz River
Upper Smith River
Little North Santiam River
Elk Creek
South Fork Coos River
Trask River
Lower Alsea River
North Fork of Nehalem River
Mill Creek-Lower Umpqua River
Fall Creek
Trail Creek
Lower Siletz River
Lower McKenzie River
Upper Cow Creek
Upper Coast Fork Willamette River
Clatskanie River
Hills Creek
Total watershed
acres (non federal)
41,467
14,550
32,428
15,549
28,850
35,234
15,984
23,267
87,538
40,390
136,250
61,619
39,131
8,791
32,313
36,516
61,703
37,360
37,746
70,962
88,262
1,640
25,913
83,232
40,478
2,366
134,728
137,988
45,549
44,215
70,737
3,146
38,035
21,165
83,646
80,379
85,683
112,464
71,431
37,252
82,014
109,890
33,371
38,800
22,432
142,027
106,031
103,158
45,287
62,181
61,162
24,616
16,264
97,044
132,165
13,396
72,527
60,665
1,003
Acres of
forest gain
13,282
1,234
2,646
1,389
4,518
1,384
1,281
3,123
10,999
7,023
25,239
13,962
5,188
907
5,848
6,004
7,305
6,891
6,449
15,987
17,192
169
1,465
11,298
7,178
169
16,084
29,814
4,931
2,951
7,748
357
4,378
6,313
6,585
13,271
13,157
22,133
11,015
3,885
7,960
19,032
4,748
5,040
2,196
27,747
17,088
4,459
5,204
7,139
7,401
4,016
307
18,252
15,416
1,031
12,839
8,734
166
Acres of
forest loss
17,515
5,741
12,513
5,705
10,390
12,273
5,241
7,550
27,923
12,750
42,451
18,304
11,290
2,530
9,258
10,447
17,046
10,035
9,934
18,592
22,861
424
6,673
21,387
10,314
595
33,411
32,872
10,819
10,420
16,605
726
8,773
4,860
19,194
18,373
18,709
24,041
15,193
7,894
17,321
23,147
6,855
7,886
4,530
28,400
20,969
20,011
8,782
12,055
11,731
4,694
3,057
18,012
24,525
2,431
12,811
10,672
176
Net change % Clearcut
(acres) 2000-2013
-4,233
42.2%
-4,507
39.5%
-9,867
38.6%
-4,316
36.7%
-5,873
36.0%
-10,889
34.8%
-3,960
32.8%
-4,427
32.4%
-16,924
31.9%
-5,727
31.6%
-17,212
31.2%
-4,343
29.7%
-6,102
28.9%
-1,623
28.8%
-3,410
28.7%
-4,443
28.6%
-9,741
27.6%
-3,145
26.9%
-3,486
26.3%
-2,605
26.2%
-5,669
25.9%
-254
25.8%
-5,209
25.8%
-10,089
25.7%
-3,137
25.5%
-426
25.2%
-17,327
24.8%
-3,058
23.8%
-5,887
23.8%
-7,469
23.6%
-8,857
23.5%
-369
23.1%
-4,394
23.1%
1,453
23.0%
-12,610
22.9%
-5,102
22.9%
-5,553
21.8%
-1,908
21.4%
-4,178
21.3%
-4,008
21.2%
-9,362
21.1%
-4,115
21.1%
-2,106
20.5%
-2,846
20.3%
-2,334
20.2%
-654
20.0%
-3,880
19.8%
-15,552
19.4%
-3,578
19.4%
-4,916
19.4%
-4,330
19.2%
-678
19.1%
-2,751
18.8%
240
18.6%
-9,109
18.6%
-1,400
18.1%
28
17.7%
-1,938
17.6%
-9
17.5%
11 Appendix 2, page 2
Forest Loss and Gain based by 5th Field Watershed in Western Oregon
This analysis excludes Federal Lands
Map Label
133
140
93
130
145
61
146
13
21
119
138
110
95
87
125
203
99
142
108
105
48
54
91
135
73
126
34
10
180
201
186
44
136
49
134
64
33
143
129
24
53
197
168
124
90
100
202
165
92
101
114
162
31
155
71
123
35
196
8
Watershed Name
Jackson Creek
Lower Cow Creek
Tillamook River
Little River
Upper Umpqua River
Mill Creek-South Yamhill River
Calapooya Creek
Big Creek
Middle Fork Willamette River-Lookout Point Reservoir
Wildcat Creek
Middle Cow Creek
Five Rivers-Lobster Creek
Wilson River
Lower Nehalem River
Siltcoos River-Tahkenitch Creek Frontal
Hunter Creek
Spring Creek-Sand Lake-Neskowin Creek Frontal
Myrtle Creek
Devils Lake-Moolack Frontal
Rock Creek-Siletz River
Quartzville Creek
South Santiam River-Hamilton Creek
Little Nestucca River
Elk Creek-South Umpqua
Gales Creek
Middle North Umpqua River
Luckiamute River
Plympton Creek
Little Applegate River
Chetco River
Grave Creek
Middle North Santiam River
South Umpqua River
South Santiam River
Middle South Umpqua River-Dumont Creek
North Yamhill River
Marys River
Olalla Creek-Lookingglass Creek
Rock Creek-North Umpqua River
Lower Middle Fork of Willamette River
Thomas Creek
Illinois River-Josephine Creek
Rogue River-Lost Creek
Lower Siuslaw River
Lower Nehalem River-Cook Creek
Upper Yaquina River
Pistol River
Humbug Mountain-Nesika Beach Frontal
Nestucca River
Big Elk Creek
Yachats River
New River Frontal
Calapooia River
Coos Bay Frontal
Lower Molalla River
North Fork Siuslaw River
Upper McKenzie River
Deer Creek
Beaver Creek-Columbia River
Total watershed
acres (non federal)
6,140
61,753
38,458
48,945
111,056
21,818
145,698
74,710
40,348
20,882
67,508
14,390
118,974
113,721
48,300
17,687
38,591
45,105
38,880
26,124
42,159
113,419
20,248
19,863
60,300
12,578
192,872
31,506
19,895
39,285
54,386
49,824
80,535
33,523
12,559
100,682
175,383
75,744
34,228
32,241
79,663
10,937
25,709
62,471
70,061
52,711
27,925
47,778
58,852
38,063
6,435
95,020
171,102
173,258
88,865
10,289
6,515
34,471
97,431
Acres of
forest gain
595
7,610
3,585
2,170
10,660
2,743
14,799
8,190
3,652
6,122
4,562
1,428
3,997
14,852
9,130
2,465
2,034
3,704
5,174
3,218
4,003
15,530
2,424
1,062
6,526
859
30,594
2,105
1,201
4,775
1,336
3,614
4,274
1,715
700
10,248
17,696
4,670
1,405
2,876
5,445
245
2,550
7,356
2,496
7,123
4,055
4,029
5,156
3,885
782
11,144
15,229
22,930
4,167
718
255
1,017
6,505
Acres of
forest loss
1,067
10,715
6,664
8,435
19,035
3,734
24,827
12,696
6,854
3,500
11,152
2,377
19,166
18,060
7,654
2,769
5,996
6,948
5,938
3,982
6,350
16,880
2,933
2,869
8,664
1,767
26,529
4,291
2,672
5,222
7,224
6,578
10,603
4,397
1,635
13,093
22,434
9,596
4,243
3,978
9,795
1,325
3,112
7,544
8,368
6,164
3,251
5,548
6,694
4,211
711
10,471
18,428
18,552
9,501
1,088
688
3,553
10,037
Net change % Clearcut
(acres) 2000-2013
-471
17.4%
-3,105
17.4%
-3,078
17.3%
-6,265
17.2%
-8,375
17.1%
-992
17.1%
-10,028
17.0%
-4,507
17.0%
-3,202
17.0%
2,622
16.8%
-6,590
16.5%
-949
16.5%
-15,168
16.1%
-3,208
15.9%
1,475
15.8%
-305
15.7%
-3,962
15.5%
-3,245
15.4%
-764
15.3%
-764
15.2%
-2,347
15.1%
-1,351
14.9%
-509
14.5%
-1,806
14.4%
-2,138
14.4%
-908
14.0%
4,066
13.8%
-2,186
13.6%
-1,471
13.4%
-447
13.3%
-5,889
13.3%
-2,964
13.2%
-6,328
13.2%
-2,682
13.1%
-935
13.0%
-2,845
13.0%
-4,738
12.8%
-4,926
12.7%
-2,838
12.4%
-1,101
12.3%
-4,351
12.3%
-1,079
12.1%
-562
12.1%
-188
12.1%
-5,873
11.9%
959
11.7%
803
11.6%
-1,519
11.6%
-1,539
11.4%
-326
11.1%
71
11.0%
673
11.0%
-3,199
10.8%
4,378
10.7%
-5,334
10.7%
-370
10.6%
-432
10.6%
-2,535
10.3%
-3,531
10.3%
12
Appendix 2, page 3
Forest Loss and Gain based by 5th Field Watershed in Western Oregon
This analysis excludes Federal Lands
Map Label
161
191
199
72
151
67
29
2
113
122
81
97
28
66
4
193
116
209
102
42
187
3
182
20
7
121
62
194
156
184
179
204
141
15
176
79
200
56
195
18
43
63
181
183
185
131
164
152
173
210
5
47
68
19
205
115
98
189
144
Watershed Name
Lower Coquille River
Lower Rogue River
Indigo Creek
Dairy Creek
Lower Smith River-Lower Umpqua River
Butte Creek-Pudding River
Long Tom River
Zigzag River
Beaver Creek-Waldport Bay
Indian Creek-Lake Creek
Scappoose Creek
Miami River
Lower Coast Fork Willamette River
Abiqua Creek-Pudding River
Middle Sandy River
Althouse Creek
Big Creek-Vingie Creek
Jenny Creek
Lower Yaquina River
Upper North Santiam River
Rogue River-Horseshoe Bend
Upper Sandy River
Williams Creek
North Fork of Middle Fork Willamette River
Lower Sandy River
Deadwood Creek
Lower South Yamhill River
Sucker Creek
Lakeside Frontal
Rogue River-Hellgate Canyon
Applegate River-McKee Bridge
Cape Ferrelo Frontal
Middle South Umpqua River
Upper Middle Fork Willamette River
Evans Creek
Lower Clackamas River
Illinois River-Lawson Creek
Rickreall Creek
West Fork Illinois River
Salmon Creek
Detroit Reservoir-Blow Out Divide Creek
Salt Creek-South Yamhill River
Middle Applegate River
Lower Applegate River
Jumpoff Joe Creek
Lower North Umpqua River
Elk River
Lower Umpqua River
Little Butte Creek
Klamath River-Iron Gate Reservoir
Bull Run River
Middle Santiam River
Rock Creek-Pudding River
Hills Creek Reservoir
Winchuck River
Mercer Lake Frontal
Tillamook Bay
Rogue River-Shasta Costa Creek
Lower South Umpqua River
Total watershed
acres (non federal)
109,342
35,955
27
141,503
61,602
66,712
241,107
908
21,140
5,268
116,868
23,015
83,760
176,395
26,998
10,714
3,492
74,794
47,232
11,829
4,061
2,667
24,745
3,638
39,528
7,188
74,520
12,560
54,933
26,000
6,852
39,188
51,743
7,078
82,985
111,107
2,374
119,777
27,899
2,058
16,218
62,574
33,644
51,329
48,193
93,892
13,365
52,752
123,933
28,224
10,152
23,855
53,237
17,238
13,012
11,813
21,065
1,500
106,023
Acres of
forest gain
17,341
2,795
0
13,502
9,314
3,515
26,134
19
1,930
833
10,211
1,100
6,102
11,336
1,487
120
212
0
4,574
441
103
104
373
220
1,220
332
4,818
185
6,664
323
350
4,006
979
1,608
5,206
2,917
29
6,061
773
78
466
1,903
454
449
637
2,956
833
4,253
4,984
927
256
1,133
1,084
2,672
416
395
193
40
1,736
Acres of
forest loss
11,225
3,630
3
14,048
5,882
6,101
21,884
82
1,874
457
10,010
1,964
7,119
13,922
2,105
831
264
5,536
3,477
850
289
188
1,700
250
2,685
479
4,780
786
3,426
1,601
417
2,368
3,111
420
4,853
6,481
138
6,929
1,597
111
835
3,006
1,562
2,320
2,156
4,116
581
2,105
4,743
1,033
364
856
1,798
573
429
380
669
47
3,253
Net change % Clearcut
(acres) 2000-2013
6,116
10.3%
-835
10.1%
-3
10.0%
-546
9.9%
3,431
9.5%
-2,586
9.1%
4,250
9.1%
-63
9.0%
56
8.9%
376
8.7%
201
8.6%
-864
8.5%
-1,017
8.5%
-2,587
7.9%
-618
7.8%
-711
7.8%
-52
7.6%
-5,536
7.4%
1,097
7.4%
-409
7.2%
-186
7.1%
-84
7.0%
-1,327
6.9%
-29
6.9%
-1,465
6.8%
-147
6.7%
38
6.4%
-601
6.3%
3,238
6.2%
-1,278
6.2%
-67
6.1%
1,638
6.0%
-2,132
6.0%
1,188
5.9%
354
5.8%
-3,564
5.8%
-109
5.8%
-868
5.8%
-824
5.7%
-32
5.4%
-369
5.1%
-1,103
4.8%
-1,108
4.6%
-1,871
4.5%
-1,519
4.5%
-1,160
4.4%
252
4.3%
2,148
4.0%
240
3.8%
-106
3.7%
-109
3.6%
278
3.6%
-714
3.4%
2,099
3.3%
-13
3.3%
15
3.2%
-475
3.2%
-7
3.1%
-1,517
3.1%
13 Appendix 2, page 4
Forest Loss and Gain based by 5th Field Watershed in Western Oregon
This analysis excludes Federal Lands
Map Label
46
1
178
192
75
177
58
174
175
96
57
65
38
128
55
132
30
127
6
172
76
32
188
69
80
211
212
82
207
83
213
208
214
11
14
17
206
Watershed Name
Lower North Santiam River
Salmon River
Upper Applegate River
East Fork Illinois River
Rock Creek-Tualatin River
Rogue River-Grants Pass
Abernethy Creek
Bear Creek
Rogue River-Gold Hill
Kilchis River
Willamette River-Chehalem Creek
Yamhill River
Blue River
Canton Creek
Mill Creek-Willamette River
Upper South Umpqua River
Muddy Creek
Steamboat Creek
Columbia Gorge Tributary
Rogue River-Shady Cove
Lower Tualatin River
Oak Creek
Rogue River-Stair Creek
Senecal Creek-Mill Creek
Johnson Creek
Cottonwood Creek
Beaver Creek
Columbia Slough-Willamette River
North Fork Smith River
Columbia River-Hayden Island
China Peak
Middle Fork Smith River
Indian Creek
Columbia River-Cathlamet Channel
Columbia River-Baker Bay
Salt Creek-Willamette River
Jenny Creek
Total:
Total watershed
Acres of
Acres of
acres (non federal) forest gain forest loss
71,234
1,538
2,120
4,374
56
123
13,411
374
353
16,233
142
422
96,537
1,603
2,428
41,161
174
1,034
86,444
1,001
2,017
182,277
2,176
4,099
102,904
2,102
2,217
38,606
342
791
172,235
1,315
3,051
64,052
580
1,049
3,231
59
53
9,509
180
153
71,893
856
1,122
253
0
4
248,319
2,410
3,690
1,052
7
16
60,312
253
893
51,798
156
719
61,578
319
830
104,349
1,023
1,239
677
25
5
34,079
101
225
60,131
109
338
36,314
154
129
37,726
5
39
78,004
99
79
43,820
0
9
18,729
17
2
22,587
0
0
14,471
0
0
35,899
0
0
43,933
0
0
96,287
1
0
100
11
0
74,794
10,642
0
11,588,764 1,023,845 1,476,209
Net change % Clearcut
(acres) 2000-2013
-581
3.0%
-68
2.8%
21
2.6%
-280
2.6%
-824
2.5%
-860
2.5%
-1,016
2.3%
-1,923
2.2%
-115
2.2%
-450
2.0%
-1,736
1.8%
-469
1.6%
6
1.6%
26
1.6%
-266
1.6%
-4
1.5%
-1,279
1.5%
-9
1.5%
-640
1.5%
-563
1.4%
-510
1.3%
-216
1.2%
19
0.8%
-124
0.7%
-229
0.6%
25
0.4%
-34
0.1%
20
0.1%
-9
0.0%
15
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
0.0%
11
0.0%
10,642
0.0%
-452,364