Seven Generation Land cover change projections and alternative scenarios; a full look at logging in your county and watershed; methodology applicable to the entire US through free federal GIS data and open source QGIS

1. What is Seven Generation Philosophy? Why is it so “American”?
Present Day New York City

2. A Seven Generation* Sustainability Analysis
for Use Anywhere with the NLCD Land Cover Change Data Set
Example: Logging in Thurston County
• Raw logs are 1% of Washington State's export value; “Forestry, Fishing, and Related Sectors” is 0.8% of Thurston
County’s Employment; Private timberland occupies 65% of the Deschutes watershed’s land area and 25% of the
County’s land area
• The loss of logs is detrimental to our rivers' health...we can see this in Thurston County/Olympia's Deschutes
watershed, where the river temperature spikes where logging has occurred…At the Deschutes watershed
workgroup, I got push back from the Weyerhauser rep that forestry practices are sustainable...So I went to the
data and to the forest and developed a crude 7th Generation Accounting Model for Logging on private
timberlands in Thurston County...business as usual plus 2 scenarios....
• Forests provide their export value in ecosystem services within 1-5 years, but logging takes 40+; ecosystem
services are what nature does for us (usually for free); such as precipitation catching (evergreens emit aerosol
components that actually precipitate clouds, Nature 2012), water table infiltration (forests help clean and and
funnel water into the ground), species diversity, water cooling (for salmon and river life), wild mushrooms, or
outdoor recreation…
• Business as usual would leave our descendants with 11% less forest; Decreasing logging by 50% would give
them 5.7% more; and stopping logging altogether would give them 45.7% more..
*Google search results together support the estimation of about 20-30 years per generation depending on standard of living; I assume 200 years for ease

3. Logging is a Problem for the Deschutes River
Temperature
differential
between blue
and green is a
proposed
scenario to
expand mature
vegetation
buffers along
the entire river
1) Sedimentation can destroy river habitat, cause landslides, erosion, create higher dredging costs
2) “Unaccounted Sedimentation” is not from “natural causes” (white) or “human sources” (blue) -> is it from logging?

4. 2001 Land Cover
2011 Land Cover
Analyzing Landcover Changes
Notice the increase
in clearcuts
And the lag time
for regrowth

5. Comparing Scale of Landcover to Landcover Changes
Logging rate outpaces
Regrowth rate

6. Understanding Landcover Data GO TO www.mrlc.gov/viewerjs/
To View Your Own Area’s Data!

7. Well, I don’t only think that the
biosphere is in trouble, I know it is. I
just have to look around in the
environment, in which I live.
In my own part of the part of the world,
I keep telling people, let us not cut
trees irresponsibly. Let us not destroy
especially the forested mountains.
Because if you destroy the forests on
these mountains, the rivers will stop
flowing and the rains will become
irregular and the crops will fail and you
will die of hunger and starvation. Now
the problem is, people don’t make
those linkages.
—Wangari Maathai in The 11th Hour

8. Evergreen 2001 Scrub 2001 Grassland 2001 Barren 2001
Evergreen 2011 76.3% 6.2% 0.4% 0.4%
Scrub 2011 8.3% 92.1% 57.6% 85.1%
Grassland 2011 11.7% 1.0% 35.3% 6.3%
Barren 2011 3.7% 0.3% 6.7% 8.2%
All other 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Ecosystem Holding Steady "Barren"=After Logging
Ecological Succession "Grassland"=Seedlings
Failed Replantings? "Scrub"=Juvenile Trees
Logging Extraction Evergreen=Mature Forest
Succession: "Barren" ->" Grassland" -> "Scrub" -> Evergreen
Ground Truthing and Understanding
Landcover Changes in Context
Notice the similarities
Within Timberlands, Landcovers have a different
meaning:
Barren=Just Logged
Grassland=Seedlings?
Scrub=Juvenile Trees?
Evergreen Forest = Mature Forest?
What does the land cover change rate between the different land covers tell
us about succession, extraction, and sustainability…..

9. Looking for Truth on the Ground…Montesano Drive 5/26/2016
Years 1-3?
Years 4-10?
Years 10-30?
Years 30-50?

10. Barren
• Immediate after logging; after 10 Years
Most Barren Becomes Shrub/Scrub;
planting is mandatory by law
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Barren Land to
Shrub/Scrub
85.06%
Barren Land to
Barren Land
8.22%
Barren Land to
Grassland/Herbaceo
us
6.30%
Barren Land to
Evergreen Forest
0.40%
Barren Land to
Woody Wetlands
0.01%Barren Land to
Deciduous Forest
0.01%

11. Grassland
• Evidence of succession to Shrub/Scrub,
but some has stayed grassland..
grazing? Lack of planting?
Grassland/
Herbaceous to
Shrub/Scrub
57.58%
Grassland/
Herbaceous to
Grassland/Herbace
ous
35.27%
Grassland/
Herbaceous to
Barren Land
6.70%
Grassland/
Herbaceous to
Evergreen Forest
0.41%
Grassland/
Herbaceous to
Deciduous Forest
0.05%

12. Shrub/Scrub
• After 10 Years Most shrub/scrub stays
as Shrub/Scrub; trees are still growing
and not registering as forest sometime
in the 10 to 20 year time frame
Shrub/Scrub to
Shrub/Scrub
92.10%
Shrub/Scrub to
Evergreen Forest
6.22%
Shrub/Scrub to
Grassland/Herbaceous
1.00%
Shrub/Scrub to Barren
Land
0.33%
Shrub/Scrub to
Deciduous Forest
0.27%
Shrub/Scrub to
Pasture/Hay
0.04%
Shrub/Scrub to Mixed
Forest
0.01%
Shrub/Scrub to Open
Water
0.01%
Shrub/Scrub to
Developed, Open
Space
0.01%
Shrub/Scrub to
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetlands
0.01%
Shrub/Scrub to
Woody Wetlands
0.00%
Shrub/Scrub to
Developed, Low
Intensity
0.00%

13. Evergreen Forest
• Evergreen Forest after a few years is
considered mature by the satellite and
gets the same designation as old
growths do; 25% of Evergreen stock is
logged per decade
Evergreen Forest to
Evergreen Forest
76.26%
Evergreen Forest to
Grassland/
Herbaceous
11.71%
Evergreen Forest to
Shrub/ Scrub
8.25%
Evergreen Forest
to Barren Land
3.72%
Evergreen Forest to
Deciduous Forest
0.04% Evergreen Forest to
Developed, Open
Space
0.01%
Evergreen Forest to
Developed, Low
Intensity
0.01%
Evergreen Forest
to Mixed Forest
0.00%
Evergreen Forest to
Developed, Medium
Intensity
0.00%

14. *Model is unrealistic: Shrub/Scrub is not Harvested and will grow back to Evergreen eventually
*Business as Usual Leaves us with 11.0% Less Forest for the 7th Generation
And Old Growths only on federal lands and some parks (if they stay protected)
*Decrease logging by 50% leaves us with 5.7% More for the 7th Generation; the other half?
Robust stream buffers/Old growth stands, Climate risk mitigation, “value-add” wood products
*Stopping Logging Leaves us with 45.7% More Forest for the 7th Generation;
and that forest will be Old Growth!
Results: “Business as Usual” and Alternatives for the 7th Generation

15. Logging in Thurston County:
A Seven Generation* Sustainability Analysis
• Raw logs are 1% of Washington State's export value; “Forestry, Fishing, and Related Sectors” is 0.8% of Thurston
County’s Employment; Private timberland occupies 65% of the Deschutes watershed’s land area and 25% of the
County’s land area
• The loss of logs is detrimental to our rivers' health...we can see this in Thurston County/Olympia's Deschutes
watershed, where the river temperature spikes where logging has occurred…At the Deschutes watershed
workgroup, I got push back from the Weyerhauser rep that forestry practices are sustainable...So I went to the
data and to the forest and developed a crude 7th Generation Accounting Model for Logging on private
timberlands in Thurston County...business as usual plus 2 scenarios....
• Forests provide their export value in ecosystem services within 1-5 years; ecosystem services are what nature
does for us (usually for free); such as precipitation catching (evergreens emit aerosol components that
actually precipitate clouds, Nature 2012), water table infiltration (forests help clean and and funnel water
into the ground), species diversity, water cooling (for salmon and river life), wild mushrooms, or outdoor
recreation, I can tell you what the logging rate should be....
• Business as usual would leave our descendants with 11% less forest; Decreasing logging by 50% would give
them 5.7% more; and stopping logging altogether would give them 45.7% more..
*Google search results together support the estimation of about 20-30 years per generation depending on standard of living; I assume 200 years for ease

16. Limitations,Further Research, and Final Thoughts
• Age of parcels not known (is there data for this?)
• Volatility shows growth and harvest cycles, but ecosystem thresholds and climate
change effects not factored in (i.e. is there a point where the ecosystem can
collapse or loose its growth capabilities under certain biophysical, climatic, or
biodiversity thresholds?).
• We know that certain slopes are very difficult to grow back because of erosion;
riparian buffers the same
• Further directions: compare regions, zoning designations, management regimes,
use field data to average ages of land cover classes
• Life has an accelerating agenda. In the Northwest, disturbed forests want to
become forests again, with the most momentum immediately following
disturbance...Nature fills the void as quickly as possible with fast growing species
(r-selection) and then as species succession proceeds (K-selection) maturation
takes longer…. Its amazing to see how ready the Earth is to heal…will we let it?

17. Non-GIS
Sources

18. Appendix

19. Appendix