DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Forest Watch Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Global Forest Watch Report 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 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment
    Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment Little Butte Creek Watershed Council August 2003 Abstract The Little Butte Creek Watershed Assessment has been prepared for the Little Butte Creek Watershed Council with funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). The Assessment was prepared using the guidelines set forth in the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board’s 1999 Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. The purpose of this document is to assess the current conditions and trends of human caused and ecologic processes within the Little Butte Creek Watershed and compare them with historic conditions. Many important ecological processes within the watershed have been degraded over the last 150 years of human activity. This Assessment details those locations and processes that are in need of restoration as well as those that are operating as a healthy system. The Assessment was conducted primarily at the 5th field watershed level, that of the entire Little Butte Creek Watershed. List and describe field watershed levels below. Where possible, the analyses was refined to the smaller 6th field watershed level, thirteen of which exist within the Little Butte Creek Watershed. The assessment also notes gaps in data and lists recommendations for future research and data collection. It is intended that this document, and the Little Butte Creek Watershed Action Plan be used as guides for future research and watershed protection and enhancement over the next decade. The document was developed using existing data. No new data was collected for this project. Where data was lacking, it was detailed for future work and study. Acknowledgements This assessment was compiled and written by Steve Mason.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Reports - Number 96-8
    INFORMATION REPORTS - NUMBER 96-8 Review of Capacity Utilization at ODFW Salmon Hatcheries Mark A. Lewis Fish Propagation Section Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2501 S.W. First Avenue P.O. Box 59 Portland, Oregon 97207 August 1996 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION................................................................ 1 SUMMARY...................................................................... 1 INDIVIDUAL HATCHERY EVALUATIONS..................................... 3 Bandon Hatchery.......................................................... 4 Big Creek Hatchery........................................................ 6 Bonneville Hatchery........................................................ 8 Butte Falls Hatchery....................................................... 10 Cascade Hatchery......................................................... 12 Cedar Creek Hatchery..................................................... 14 Clackamas Hatchery....................................................... 16 Cole Rivers Hatchery.............................................. ........ 19 Elk River Hatchery........................................................ 21 Fall Creek Hatchery........................................................ 24 Klaskanine Hatchery....................................................... 25 Lookingglass Hatchery..................................................... 27 Marion Forks Hatchery.................................................... 29 McKenzie Hatchery.......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Streamflow Records in Rogue River Basin, Oregon
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 187 \ EVALUATION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN ROGUE RIVER BASIN, OREGON B!y Donald Rkhaideon UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 187 EVALUATION OF STREAMFLOW RECORDS IN ROGUE RIVER BASIN, OREGON By Donald Richardson Washington, D. C., 1952 Free on application to the Geological Surrey, Washington 25, D. C. ' CONTENTS Page Page Abstract................................. 1 Syllabus of gaging-stations records--Con. Introduction............................. 1 Gaging-station records-Continued Purpose and Scope...................... 1 Rogue River Continued Acknowledgments........................ 1 Little Butte Creek at Lake Creek... 25 Physical features- of the basin........... 2 Little Butte Creek above Eagle Utilization of water in the basin........ 2 Point............................ 25 Water resources data for Rogue River basin 5 Little Butte Creek near Eagle Streamflow records ..................... 5 Point............................ 25 Storage reservoirs..................... 6 Little Butte Creek below Eagle Adequacy of data....................... 6 Point............................ 26 Syllabus of gaging-station records....... 13 Emigrant Creek (head of Bear Creek) Explanation of data .................... 13 near Ashland..................... 27 Gaging-station records................. 13 Emigrant Creek below Walker Creek, Rogue River above Bybee Creek........ 13 near Ashland..................... 28 Rogue River above
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in Big Butte Creek, 2009
    ROGUE RIVER SPRING CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN Evaluation of spring Chinook salmon spawning in Big Butte Creek, 2008 Rogue Watershed District Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife March 2009 Introduction A conservation plan for Rogue River spring chinook salmon, developed in cooperation with a public advisory committee, was approved by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2007. The conservation plan lists several management strategies to bring numbers of naturally produced spring chinook back up to a desired status level that is sustainable and will support economically important fisheries. Management strategy 9.2 calls for enhancement of spring chinook (CHS) in Big Butte Creek through an increase in the amount of available spawning habitat. A small falls on lower Big Butte Creek (Crowfoot Falls, rivermile 0.6) is considered a partial barrier, limiting the upstream passage of adults, and thus limiting natural production in upstream areas. Two allied action items (Action 2.1 and 2.2) relate to this issue. Upstream passage at Crowfoot Falls might be enhanced if additional ambient flow of cool, spring-fed water can be realized during the upstream migration of adult CHS in Big Butte Creek. Determination of the amount of flow needed to enhance upstream migration would be valuable because flows during the critical migration period are significantly affected by water withdrawal from the creek. As part of conservation plan implementation, ODFW conducted enhanced surveys in 2008 on Big Butte Creek to verify current conditions and explore enhancement opportunities. To facilitate the work, ODFW Restoration and Enhancement Program (R&E) grant funding was utilized to hire two seasonal employees to complete the enhanced surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Coho Salmon Peak Counts in Random Spawner Surveys
    SUMMARY OF RANDOM COHO SPAWNER SURVEYS 2001 SPAWNING SEASON PEAK COUNTS (LIVE AND DEAD) ESTIMATED RUN SIZE (AUC) ADULTS JACKS ADULTS JACK NUMBER PER PER PER PER SURVEYS MILES VISITS MILE MILE MILE MILE COAST WIDE 503482.1 5106 15 1 31 1 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 15-Aug-02 PAGE 1 SUMMARY OF RANDOM COHO SPAWNER SURVEYS 2001 SPAWNING SEASON PEAK COUNTS (LIVE AND DEAD) ESTIMATED RUN SIZE (AUC) ADULTS JACKS ADULTS JACKS SEG- NUM PER PER DATE PER PER REACH MENT SURV MILES VISITS PEAK MILE DATE PEAK MILE AUC MILE AUC MILE North Coast 7069.3 717 21 1 39 1 Necanicum River88.4 88 25 2 64 4 Main Stem 8 8.4 88 25 2 64 4 Beerman Cr1 26198.00 3 0.6 10 11 18 12/5/01 2 3 11/1/01 32 53 3 5 Circle Creek1 26204.00 2 1.1 12 27 24 12/5/01 3 3 11/1/01 92 81 7 6 Klootchie Cr1 26214.00 2 1.0 11 23 22 11/18/01 3 3 11/18/01 54 52 5 5 Mail Cr 1 26218.00 1 1.0 12 35 36 11/26/01 4 4 12/4/01 96 98 6 6 Necanicum 1R, N Fk 26228.00 2 1.2 10 19 16 11/27/01 1 1 12/21/01 33 27 1 1 Joe Cr 1 26239.00 1 1.1 11 23 21 12/21/01 2 2 11/8/01 32 29 3 3 Joe Cr 1 26239.00 2 0.8 11 35 43 11/17/01 2 2 11/17/01 104 128 2 2 Necanicum 1R, 26243.00 2 1.5 11 34 23 12/21/01 1 1 12/31/01 66 44 1 1 Bergsvik Cr To Grindy Cr Arch Cape Creek10.8 10 10 0 16 0 Main Stem 1 0.8 10 10 0 16 0 Arch Cape Cr3 26163.00 1 0.8 10 8 10 11/9/01 0 0 13 16 0 0 Nehalem River 61 60.1 619 21 1 36 1 Main Stem 47 45.6 467 18 1 35 1 Vosburg Cr5 25832.00 10.31000000000 Foley Cr 5 25887.00 10.6800000000 Foley Cr 5 25889.00 1 1.2 9 1 1 11/12/01 0 0 1 1 0 0 Foley Cr 5 25893.00 2 0.3 9 4 12 11/12/01 0 0 3 9
    [Show full text]
  • North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Water Quality
    Water Quality Restoration Plan Southern Oregon Coastal Basin North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Medford District Ashland Resource Area Butte Falls Resource Area Lakeview District Klamath Falls Resource Area May 2006 North and South Forks Little Butte Creek Key Watershed at a Glance Hydrologic Unit Code Number (Little 1710030708 Butte Creek) WQRP Area/Ownership Total: 125,778 acres BLM: 26,959 acres (21%) U. S. Forest Service: 59,875 acres (48%) Bureau of Reclamation: 5 acres (<.01%) Private: 38,939 acres (31%) 303(d) Stream Miles Assessed Total: 65.4 miles BLM Ownership: 15.7 miles 303(d) Listed Parameters Temperature, Sedimentation, E. Coli, pH Key Resources and Uses Salmonids, domestic, aesthetic Known Human Activities Agriculture, forestry, roads, recreation, rural residential development Natural Factors Geology: volcanic Soils: various series and complexes Statement of Purpose This water quality restoration plan is prepared to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act. Table of Contents Page Element 1 Condition Assessment and Problem Description 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Watershed Characterization 4 C.Temperature 16 D. Sedimentation 23 E.E.Coli 31 F.pH 34 Element 2 Goals and Objectives 36 Element 3 Proposed Management Measures 39 Element 4 Time Line for Implementation 40 Element 5 Responsible Parties 41 Element 6 Reasonable Assurance of Implementation 41 Element 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 42 Element 8 Public Involvement 44 Element 9 Costs and Funding 44 Element 10 Citation to Legal Authorities 45 References 46 List of Preparers 48 List of Tables Page 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution and Occurrence of the Birds of Jackson County, Oregon
    GAZETTEER Geographical localities to which references are made in the species accounts are listed below. Names are followed by distances from a certain reference point, usually Medford or Ashland. Most of the localities are located on 15-minute quadrangles (scale 1:62500) published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Quadrangles with publica- tion dates covering Jackson County are: Tiller (1944), Abbott Butte (1944), Prospect (1956), Wimer (1954), Trail (1945), Butte Falls (1954), Rustler Peak (1955), Goldhill (1954), Medford (1954), Lake Creek (1954), Mount McLoughlin (1955), Ruch (1954), Talent (1954), Ashland (1954), and Hyatt Reservoir (1955). Spelling, nomenclature, and measurements conform to those appearing on the maps. Measure- ments in parentheses are from the metric scale. Numbers in brackets identify localities shown in Fig. 1. Agate Desert. Open shrub area 4 miles (6.4 km) north of Medford and west of White City [17], Agate Reservoir. A reservoir 8 miles (12.9 km) northeast of Medford; elevation, 1,500 feet (457 m) [22], Anderson Creek. A tributary of Bear Creek beginning 7 miles (11.3 km) south-southwest of Phoenix at 4,189 feet (1,276.8 m) elevation [41]. Applegate River. Locality in species accounts refers to an area near Ruch [46], Ashland. The southernmost city of Jackson County; elevation, 1,951 feet (594.6 m) [44], Baldy or Mount Baldy. A rounded mountain 3 miles (4.8 km) north- east of Phoenix in the western Cascade Mountains; elevation, 3,844 feet (1,171.6 m) [34], Bear Creek. Primary drainage of Bear Creek Valley (from near Ashland to the backwaters of Gold Ray Dam) [42], Big Butte Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • US Army Corps of Engineers Rogue Basin Dam Fisheries Evaluation Effects of Lost Creek Dam on the Distribution and Time of Chinoo
    OREGO@ FISH & WILDLIFE REFERENCE LIBRARY US Army Corps of Engineers %Fish & Wilcffilz; Portland District Rogue Basin Dam Fisheries Evaluation Effects of Lost Creek Dam on the Distribution and Time of Chinook Salmon Spawning in the Rogue River Upstream of Gold Ray Dam May 1991 EFFECTS OF LOST CREEK DAM ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND TIME OF CHINOOK SALMON SPAWNING IN THE ROGUE RTVPD 11P1ZTDr'A OF rnin DAv nAM Rogue Basin Fisheries Evaluation Project Research and Development Section Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2501 SW First Street P.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 May 1990 The United States Army Corps of Engineers funded this project under contract DACW57-77-C-0033. CONTENTS Paqe FOREWORD ............................................................... ii SUMMARY 1 ................................................................ Spawning I Distribution ............................................. Spawning Ti 1 ..................................................... RECOMMENDATIONS 2 ........................................................ INTRODUCTION 3 ........................................................... METHODS 4 ........................................ ....................... RESULTS 6 ................................................................ Spawning Distribution 6 ............................................. Spawning Time 10 ..................................................... DISCUSSION 17 ............................................................. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 20 ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Matter of the Determination of the Relative Rights to the Waters of the Rogue River and Its Tributaries : Decree
    I--- I - 1 I __-_._____ ------- - --------- __ -,---_ I -, E & 641, ' IC~ -t Sam 9IMZ ' byV1 'I ~1LII IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ters of said stream are involved in and corporations shall be, and hereby is, for- STATE OF OREGON FOR to 'be determined by, separate adjudica- ever ]barred and estopped from hereafter JACKSON COUNTY. tion and determination proceedings now asserting any rights heretofore acquired pending in this court; and are expressly upon said Rogue River or any of its trib- excluded from consideration, adjudication utaries embraced within these proceedings, IN THE MATTER OF THE DETERMI- or determination in this decree, in so far and shall be held, and hereby is declared, NATION OF THE RELATIVE RIGHTS as said relatiye rights of said claimants to have forfeited all rights to use of the OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS TO to said waters are concerned; and the said waters herein involved, if any he had prior THE WATERS OF ROGUE RIVER relative rights of said claimants shall be hereto, theretofore claimed by him; the AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, ABOVE THE adjudicated and determined in said ad- persons, firms and corporations so being in MOUTH OF THE ILLINOIS RIVER, IN judication proceedings to which they were default herein being as follows, to-wit: JACKSON, JOSEPHINE AND CURRY originally parties, as between themselves, W. C. Armstrong, 0. A. Adams, Wm. Ax- CGCJNTIES. by a decree cn be entered therein; that tell, M'arie V. Arnold, J. W. Adams, Ash- in respect to the rights of each and every land Com. Orchard Co., W.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Big Butte Watershed Analysis Table of Contents
    Lower Big Butte Watershed Analysis Table of Contents 1.0 CHARACTERIZATION of the WATERSHED ................................1 1.1 PHYSICAL ASPECT .................................................1 1.1.a Regional Setting ..............................................1 1.1.b Climate .....................................................1 1.1.c Topography ..................................................1 1.1.d Geology ....................................................1 1.1.e Soils ......................................................1 1.1.f Water Rights .................................................2 1.1.g Hydrology and Water Distribution ..................................2 1.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ..........................................3 1.2.a Forest Vegetation .............................................3 1.2.b 15% Late-Successional Forest Lands ...............................3 1.2.c Special Status Plants ..........................................3 1.2.d Noxious Weeds ...............................................4 1.2.e Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ........................4 1.2.f Wildlife .....................................................5 1.2.g Grazing ....................................................5 1.3 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ..............................................5 1.3.a Fish Passage Barriers ..........................................5 1.3.b Fisheries Distribution ...........................................5 1.4 RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEM ..............................................6 1.5 HUMAN/SOCIAL
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2017-2018
    JACKSON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT “Turning natural resource concerns into opportunities” Annual Report July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 Highlights Contents Large-Scale Riparian Restoration Project Along Bear Creek: page 8 Manager’s Message Inside Cover Financial Report i Our Board 1 Our Staff 2 Our Partners in 3 Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Strategic Conservation Implementation Areas: page 9 Project Achievements 6 & Success Stories Eagle Scout Candidates Help Restore Riparian Habitat along Bear Creek: page 14 Middle Rogue PSP 11 Riparian Restoration 11 Rebate Program Hands-on Education 12 The Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District is dedicated to helping the people of Jackson County protect and improve their natural resources. We work with both individuals and communities to analyze and implement science-based solutions to various natural resource concerns, while still protecting the cultural, social and economic values of Jackson County. Manager’s Message habitat, interpretive trails and educational demonstration projects with individuals, ell, another year has come and schools and other local public and private Wgone with several natural resource entities. Kora was able to help many concerns turned into opportunities for of these projects receive funding for many Jackson County citizens. As you will implementation, including grant funds see, district staff has been busy helping from the District. landowners implement stewardship projects. They have developed and Paul DeMaggio, the District’s Soil delivered a wide range of outreach and and water Conservation Engineer, was instrumental in designing and educational projects to engage and implementing a large scale irrigation inspire youth and adults to do their part conversion project in our Focus Area.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Places Premier Summer Trout Fi Shery Stocked with Rainbow Trout Weekly Campground with River Access, Boat Ramp and ADA Restroom
    41. ROGUE RIVER ABOVE LOST CREEK 48. VALLEY OF THE ROGUE STATE PARK, Common Fish RESERVOIR, Prospect – 42 mi, 55 min. Gold Hill – 16 mi., 20 min. Trout Salmon, steelhead, trout 50 places Premier summer trout fi shery stocked with rainbow trout weekly Campground with river access, boat ramp and ADA restroom. between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Campgrounds and Take I-5 N for 15.5 miles to Exit 45B. Right onto Twin Bridges to go fishing within other public access sites are stocked. More fi shing on naturally Rd. Go under the freeway into the park. ORSP produced trout is available in tributaries, and on the South and 49. WHITEHORSE PARK, Grants Pass – Salmon Middle Forks. Take OR-62 E about 42 miles and look for access Trout Steelhead 60 minutes points and campgrounds. USFS 38 mi., 45 min. Salmon, steelhead, trout 42. SARDINE CREEK/ROCK POINT, Gold Hill – of Medford County campground and day use fee park with restrooms, picnic 13 mi., 18 min. Let’s go fishing on Saturday. Not enough time to go fi shing? Think again – if you live in the Salmon, steelhead, trout area, and boat ramp. Take I-5 N 28 miles to Exit 58. Left onto 6th Str. and go about 2 miles. Right onto G Str. and go 1.3 miles Medford area, there are many places you can get to in less than an hour. Mileage and generalized Undeveloped access site on the Rogue River at the junction of where it becomes Upper River Rd. Go another 4.5 miles to where directions are from Rogue Valley Mall, 1968 Crater Lake Hwy.
    [Show full text]