129 Table 14. Bagley timber cruise table, T. 10 S., R. 5 W., S. 5, 1915. Original on file in Benton County courthouse (Bagley 1915). Compare with Map 12, hand-colored original of which is printed on same form and page as this table. This section was mostly clearcut by its owner, Caffal Brothers, shortly after WW II. It was subsequently exchanged with OSC for a smaller parcel of land with timber and then added to the Paul M. Dunn Research Forest (see Map 3; Tables D.3 and D.4; Jackson 1980; Dunn 1990; Rowley 1996). establishment of pastureland or reforestation of clearcuts (Thomas & Schroeder 1936; Longwood 1940; Hanish 1994; Dickey 1995; Vanderburg 1995; Rowley 1996). Logging was mostly concentrated in areas of small diameter (12 to 24 inch) second-growth timber for the manufacture of railroad ties (Thomas & Schroeder 1936; MacCleery 1992; Wisner 1992; Vanderburg 1995; Hindes 1996). In the 1930s, the development of the Oregon Forest Nursery (McDaniel 1931) and a US Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp at Peavy Arboretum (Jackson 1980; Thomas 1980; Starker 1984; Sekermestrovich 1990; Zybach c.1991; Rowley 1996) led to the first major tree planting projects in Soap Creek Valley (see Fig. 19). During this same period, OSU began buying significant amounts of logged off land and young stands of trees through a bequest left by 130 Mary McDonald (Jackson 1980; Starker 1984; Dunn 1990; Rowley 1996) and a number of forestry practices and research projects were implemented by OSU forestry students and CCC personnel (Jackson 1980; Sekermestrovich 1993). During this period a permanent road system was established along the southern ridgeline of Soap Creek Valley (Nettleton 1956), following a centuries-old course used by local Kalapuyans and early pioneers (Zybach et al. 1990; Rowley 1996). By the 1930s and 1940s, tree falling was performed with power saws and much of the logging was accomplished with caterpillar tractors (Vanderburg 1995; Hindes 1996). Clearcutting remained a preferred method of harvest, although seed trees were often left for reforestation purposes (Dickey 1995; Vanderburg 1995). Soap Creek Valley became a location for military combat training during WW II, which put a temporary end to most forestry practices in the area. Following the war, most forestland on the northern portion of The Valley was obtained by OSU College of Forestry, forming most of the current OSU Research Forests’ Paul M. Dunn Forest (see Map 3; Jackson 1980; Dunn 1990; Rowley 1996; Davies 1997). Heavily timbered land that had been cruised in 1915 (see Table 14 and Map 12) was clearcut by its owner and traded to OSU for standing timber (Jackson 1980; Dunn 1990; Rowley 1990: personal communication). In the early 1950s, several large clearcuts on OSU property were made to generate revenue to pay for the Dunn Forest acquisitions (see Table 16) and numerous efforts were made with OSC student tree planters to afforest remaining hillside prairies, occasionally resulting in as many as seven or more attempts to forest the persistent grasslands (Nettleton 1956; Garver 1996: personal communication; Rowley 1998: personal communication). In the late 1950s, a contractor was hired to begin commercial thinning and salvage operations throughout the McDonald and Dunn Forests (see Map 3) and a director was established to begin formulating long-term management plans (Nettleton 1956; Jackson 1980; Dunn 1990; Rowley 1996; Davies 1997). In October, 1962, the Columbus Day Storm traveled the complete length of western Oregon, damaging thousands of acres of timber (Lucia c.1963). Several stands of trees in Soap Creek Valley, particularly along the ridges, were blown over in this storm, and downed timber was salvaged (see Table 16; Jackson 1980; Blanchard 1995, personal communication; Rowley 1996; Davies 1997). Many of 131 Table 15. Old-growth and 2nd growth timber volumes, 1852-1915. See Appen- dices F an G; Maps 2 and 3; Tables 2 and 14. Timber volumes are Scribner scale (Andrews & Cowlin 1940). T-R-S Seed 1 DF DBH BM OG MBF 2G MBF WF 11-5-6 1600 DF/RC 4 6-60 3 12,230 16,310 2,500 11-5-5 1650 DF/WF 3 6-12 1 6,925 6,195 1,195 10-5-32 1650 DF/WF 5 10-50 3 4,310 5,170 340 11-5-7 1650 DF/WF 2,690 1,365 345 11-5-8 1650 DF/WF 1 14 1 2,660 8,600 1,050 11-5-3 1650 DF/WF 1 1,650 5,280 370 11-5-4 1650 DF/WF 1 60 1,075 4,290 430 10-5-33 1650 DF/Oak 2 8-10 765 2,845 55 10-5-22 1650 DF/Oak 1 24 550 4,850 415 10-5-28 1650 DF/Oak 3 8-13 1 350 2,530 10-5-35 1650 DF/Oak 340 3,275 11-5-9 1700 WF/DF 275 4,395 635 11-5-2 1650 DF/Oak 225 1,075 10-5-29 1650 DF/Oak 2 8-30 1 80 625 10-5-15 1800 DF/Oak 2,250 10-5-23 1750 DF/WF 1 800 225 10/5/27 Oak/Maple 1 10/5/25 Oak/Maple 1 10/5/26 Oak/Alder 10/5/34 Oak/Willow 10/4/18 Oak 10/4/30 Oak 10/5/10 Oak 10-5-12 Ash/Oak 10-5-13 Ash/Oak 10-5-24 Oak/Ash 10-5-14 Oak/Ash 10-5-11 Oak/Ash 10-4-7 Oak/Ash 10/4/19 Oak/Ash 30 Sec. Total 22 6-60 14 34,125 69,855 7,560 T-R-S Township S., Range W., Section Seed 1 1915 cruise data, age est. DF = Douglas-fir, WF = white fir, RC = redcedar DF Number of PLS Douglas-fir BTs, 1852-1882 DBH Range of Douglas-fir BT “diameters at breast height” (approx. 4 1/2 feet above ground level) BM Bigleaf maple BT numbers, 1852-1882 OG MBF Old-growth Douglas-fir timber volumes, thousand board feet, 1915 2G MBF 2nd growth Douglas-fir timber volumes, thousand board feet, 1915 WF MBF White (grand) fir timber volumes, thousand board feet, 1915 the horizontal forest cover patterns that exist to this day can be traced to the effects of the Columbus Day Storm and resulting management actions 132 implemented at that time (Rowley 1996; Rowley 1998: personal communication; personal observation). From the late 1960s to the 1980s, forestry practices in Soap Creek Valley remained generally stable, with emphasis placed on commercial thinning, salvage logging, and tree planting practices on OSU properties, and clearcutting, site preparation, and tree planting on private lands. In the late 1980s, local increases in residential development and focused public attention regarding management of endangered species (see Chapter I) led to a number of conflicts between forest managers, local residents, College of Forestry administrators, and some OSU faculty (Garver 1990: personal communication; Anderson 1993; Rowley 1996). The creation of a formal Research Forests forest plan in 1993 attempted to change the direction of established Research Forests management practices by being more responsive to local public interests (OSU College of Forestry Forest Planning Team 1993). By 1996, the plan remained in draft form, although it was in the process of being implemented (Sessions 1996: personal communication). The current status of the draft plan is uncertain. Discussion. Public perceptions of poor management of OSU forestlands by OSU Research Forests includes concern that Soap Creek Valley timberlands are being managed almost solely for commercial gain rather than managing for “biological diversity” (or “biodiversity”). This is an issue raised in the local press (Garver 1990: personal communication; Anderson 1993) and OSU texts (Hunter 1990; Anderson & Runciman 1995). Hunter (1990), for example, claims that “managing for biological diversity is of critical importance because it is essential to the ecological well-being of the planet.” Thomas agrees with Hunter, claiming “a de facto policy of biodiversity protection . is the overriding objective” of forest management in the US, particularly for the Pacific Northwest (Thomas et al., 1993). Hunter (1990) contrasts “biodiversity management” with industrial forest practices (those that typify most Soap Creek Valley forestland stand and plantation management of this century): Natural forest stands in which a single species is dominant are moderately common, but natural stands almost entirely composed of a single tree species are rather rare. In contrast, most plantations are nearly pure monocultures . and they have a widespread reputation for supporting an impoverished flora and fauna. 133 Table 16. OSU Research Forests logging volumes, 1949-1979 (Jackson 1980; Dunn 1990). These volumes were largely harvested from Soap Creek Valley (see Map 3). Note harvests of 1952-1953, which were used to pay US for acquisition costs of Paul M. Dunn Research Forests (Dunn 1990), and harvests of 1962-1966, which were in response to blowdown caused by the Columbus Day Storm of 1962 (Rowley 1996; Davies 1997). Hunter (1990) further asserts that: 1) “natural stands almost entirely composed of a single tree species are rather rare,” 2) “most plantations are nearly pure monocultures,” and 3) plantation-monocultures have a “widespread 134 reputation for supporting an impoverished” wildlife. Soap Creek Valley is a typical portion of the Douglas-fir Region, within which nearly pure stands of even- aged Douglas-fir, grand fir, lodgepole pine, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, and other conifer species are the general rule (Andrews and Cowlin 1940; Stout 1981), and provides a counterpoint to Hunter’s assertions (see Figs. 14, 19, 20, 21, and 22; Map 12; Tables 14, 15 and 16). Even-aged, nearly pure stands of juniper, larch, lodgepole, and yellow pine in eastern Oregon, Idaho, and Washington demonstrate that the phenomenon is not limited to the Douglas-fir Region, and extends throughout most of the Pacific Northwest.