I recently flew over Vancouver Island . I was schocked at what a high percentage of the Island has been clearcut. Many of the clearcuts were on steep slopes that led direclty into streams. I saw similar logging practices on the Olympic Penninsula. I wonder how big a role clearcutting has played in wiping our wild salmon runs?

HUGE

Grandpa, you are absolutely right. We hear about the Washington Forest group (Bill Wilkison's org.) and it makes me want to throw up. There are better laws and regulations now but in general the forestry industry had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table. For you to get your blood into a boil all you need to do is think about environmental extremists, for me, its the rape and abuse of the People's forests - our National Forests. You look at habitat problems and their effect on wild fish - look at the logging practices of the late 19th and almost all of the 20th century. And they did it on National Forests. Can you say Corporate Welfare? Disgusting.

Clearcut logging has also done a lot to help provide additional browse for deer, elk, and other species who live there year round.

As with any harvesting practice there will be some impact on the flora and fauna in the area. Some species benefit, some don't.

With the low finished lumber prices (not including the last two months), and the Canadians flooding the market, even with a 27% tariff, production in the US has shifted somewhat to getting the most out of a particular stand of timber. Timber harvests, especially in private forests, are more selective (except for some of the "Campbell Group" operations.). They make sure they take the "poles" first, then selectively log for saw logs. Pecker poles for pulp are last. There are also stricter regulations on leaving "wildlife trees", etc.

Some operations are still basic clearcut deals, but there are streamside setbacks here in the US that the timber companies have to abide by.

Sure we can gripe about it the past, but what is your house made out of? Many positive changes have been made, and it is getting better.

One big shift has been the implementation of "pulp wood" farms where they have planted lowland river bottom areas with hybrid Poplars/Cottonwoods. This has taken some of the stress away from the coniferous forests, especially when you consider some of these hybrid farms can be harvested every 9-15 years instead of only every 40-60 years.

Many industries have had a negative impact on our environment, the timber industry is only one of them.

Andy

Business is business, money is money. It's what makes the world go 'round.

Corporate America will always (or until they are forced to change) do everything they can to reduce costs and maximize profit.

It's a rare corporation that thinks of the environment (or any other innocent bystander) before it's shareholders (or their own self-serving executives). How many major corporations make dramatic changes to their operations on their own, without government intervention, that cost them money but reduce their negative environmental impact?

Loggers are no more likely to want to stop what they're doing than commercial fishermen. That's not just the corporate managers, it's the blue collar guys too. Who wants to give up their livelihood first?

FWIW, these "increase profits at all non-financial costs" effects aren't reserved for the environment. Look what's happening now with manufacturing. The resource being affected in this case is jobs in the US. Will we legislate job security? Not without corporate execs. going down screaming and kicking.....not to mention the people that will no long be able to get free phones when they upgrade their cellular plan.

rant mode =

So, anyone looking for an SMT Process Engineer?

Of course clearcut logging hurts enviro.

Setbacks and education are doing a lot to improve the situation. The practices of the past are just that , History!

Loggers (Timber Co,s) don't do it here or in Canada anymore. There are a few handlog sales in Canada that impact the shoreline but very minimaly.

In my opinion the greatest threat now is development.

Golf courses are death to fish!

All those green lawns that look like carpet along the streams and shorelines.

The uncountable number of improperly functioning septic systems.

Little things like over fertilizing and dumping waste in the storm water probably contribute as much or more to the problem now.

Just my opinion!



herm

Isn't the agreed stream setback only 200 feet under the forest and fish law, Locke's sell out to the timber industry which will be in place for the next fifty years?
What I really hate seeing now is land meant for timber production being turned into massive housing developments and then the industry pressures for more national forest timber. Makes me sick.

Sorry to sound stupid.... but don't you live in a house?

We all require new housing. Whether it be for me or my daughter in 20 years.

Now where you should put houses is a good debate...

The new forest practice rules have made a huge impact in how logging will affect streams and riparian zones. I know there are those that will argue they don't go far enough, but I think development and farming probably create a greater threat to fish habitat.

As far as buffer protection under the new forest practices rules, buffer widths are based on stream type and site potential tree height. Buffers also consist of a core, inner and outer zone with different requirements for each zone. I wish it were as easy as saying buffers are "X" feet, but it isn't. Obviously there are some problems with the new rules, but hopefully through the adaptive management component of the rules we can correct things as they come up.

Dogfish and Herm, When you say that the past is history do you intend for those that participated in damaging actions in the past to have a free pass? Am I not allowed to criticize and be dubious of those people and companies that have caused harm in the past? Especially when many are still active in the forestry industry??? Just because the vast majority of the industry caused innumerable problems with their abusive logging practices right up until the 1990's and were never convicted of any crimes does not mean they get a free pass from me. If it sounds like I'm bitter - that's true. Growing up here, watching log trucks pull up to the Ports and offload logs onto ships, exporting our resources and our jobs while leaving you and I to clean up the mess has given me a hard heart to those that I truly believe to be environmental terrorists.

The Forestry industry has much to prove to me. I hope that the new rules work and that the industry adheres to them. I am reminded of President Reagan's words to Gobrachev. "Trust yet verify"

Herm, you say "the practices of the past are just that, History." Try telling that to the Stillaguamish System, which is plagued by slides and siltation problems and will be for generations to come due to past poor logging practices.

Beezer

And??

I drive a car that burns oil and gasoline too, but does that mean I can't be ticked about the Exxon Valdez?

Dan S., right on the money.

There is responsible resource management, and there is something else.

And, while I think most of us agree that they're taking steps to curtail harmfull forestry practices, are they forcing the timber companies to repair the damage? If not, is the government stepping in to fix it?

".......are they forcing the timber companies to repair the damage?"

The answer depends on what you call damage. If upgrading roads, disconnecting ditch water from streams, replacing culverts that block fish passage, side cast pull back and abandoning or upgrading stream adjacent parallel roads, then the answer is yes. If the question is in reference to old debris torrents and slides then the answer is no. I've looked at hundreds of debris torrents and slides and there's really nothing that can be done other than stabilize and revegetate the slope.

I don't know if that answers the question completely, but hopefully it clarifies some things.

I don't know why some of you don't read the entire post and think about what was said before you fly to conclusions.

I never said nor tried to insinuate that I thought that past practices were proper or that they should be forgiven or forgotten!

I don't think that the rules that are in place now cover everything but I do know that it is a lot better than it was.

I'm not going to debate wether trees should be harvested or not, in my opinion they should be and they should be harvested in a manner that is both economicaly and environmentaly feasible(sp). In many areas clearcutting is acceptable, I don't like it but I have taken the time to understand it.

The timber industry has learned a lot and it still has a great deal more to learn.

History is to be learned from, so it doesn't happen again!

When we, americans, send our industry to 3rd world nations and then we as chest thumping, finger pointing,environmentalists, buy those products, lumber included, because it is cheaper than homegrown from Co.s that try to compete, and are at the same time, not only changing their practices for the better, but in many instances attempting to right many of the wrongs committed in the past, I think we better start looking a lot closer to home, for the real enviro terrorists!

Just my opinion.




herm

Herm,

Excellent points.

I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, or say that they can't b!tch about past forest practices, but at that time, they were legal. The forestry industry has made changes, as mandated by law, to their harvest practices.

I think we are in agreement that the forestry industry has had significant impacts on salmon habitat, and other environmental issues. The issue at hand is if they have learned from the mistakes of the past to make things better for the future.

I believe that there have been a number of positive steps made in that direction.

The difference between an idealist and a realist is that the idealist can only see things his way, and if they are not changed immediately, then that is unacceptable. A realist sees things how they are, and how they would like things to be, and then tries to make the industries involved change their practices incrementally to acheive their goals.

I believe that we are all on the same side, we want the fish to succeed.

BTW, I know the difference between a feller buncher and a shovel logger, I know how to value an excavator by the wear patterns on the treads and under carriage, and I am proud to help finance folks involved in the forestry industry. I do it every day.

I also like to build things made out of wood. It is a beautiful medium to work with.

Andy

Must be a domestic vehicle. :p

Along with the comercial fishermen the logging industry only did what the gov. decided what was propper.

I don't think that most of the forest industries would of done what they did if they knew the impact they had. Now the freaking netters know the damage they are doing and yet they are allowed to continue.

We are always whining about the past. Netting is right now and its killing whats left of our runs.

"I've looked at hundreds of debris torrents and slides and there's really nothing that can be done other than stabilize and revegetate the slope."

borntofish, thanks for addressing my question!

Has it proven to be too expensive, or too difficult, to stabilize and revegetate? Or is it really not either, but it's more effort than someone's going to put out w/o being forced?

My visual image of an steep, rocky slope and accompanying slides doesn't look like a simple challenge.

cupo,

All autos burn oil. Every one.

Sometimes, incremental change isn't good enough. I agree that it is the best way to address forestry/fish management techniques, but in some cases incremental change translates to foot-dragging.

For instance, the Monsanto Corp. manufactured PCB's for a variety of uses in Alabama. When the US gov't discovered that PCB's were a carginogen, and outlawed their production Monsanto continued manufacturing and dumping them for another 15 years. The people living in the area measure astoundingly high in PCB concentrations.

Yet the EPA warned no one. Why? Because the government thought Monsanto was making incremental changes in the way the handled and disposed of PCB's. Even a realist can see that this is wrong. Things should have been changed immediately.


OK, then on the forestry issue. I think that timber companies have done an admirable job of making their land salmon-friendly. You don't see the things in the woods you used to see when I was a kid. Logging has visibly less impact on the area than it used to. It is obvious to me that timber companies are moving in the right direction .

As far as their past sins, people must remeber that they're looking back on 1970's and 80's logging practices through 2003 eyes. I don't think anyone was aware at the time what was being done to our future fisheries. Hell, back then WE were whacking natives and thinking it was cool.

The damage that was done is done. The smart thing to do now is prevent future damage not lament past damage. From what I've seen timber companies are going to great lengths (on the whole) to prevent the dmage that was commonly seen in the past.

Skywalker-

Actually it's a little of everything you mentioned, but tends to depend on the type of slide and the amount of damage you want to correct. There were many attempts in the early 80's to develop a machine that would remove sediment from gravel, but the feasiblity (financial and technical) just wasn't and likely isn't there. Some of you may even remember the UofW's gravel gertie that was developed to clean spawning gravel. There's also the issue of the cure sometimes being worse than the disease.

On a large slide that dumps thousands of yards of dirt and sediment into a river, you'd have to build haul roads in riparian areas just to move the sediment exctracted from the stream. In the process, you'd loose riparian cover, create fish passage issues when crossing tributaries and a variety of other issues. You'd also have to imagine this huge machine chugging down the river disturbing the streambed and any fish present. Not a pretty picture in my mind.

Just for the record, I've seen a couple of big slides that I actually thougth improved the stream dramatically. I know this sounds counterintuitive, but a stream that lacks large woody debris and gravel can actually benefit from a slide or debris torrent. I know in one instance that within a couple of years of the slide I found a lot of new pools and riffles that provided excellent fish rearing and spawning habitat that previously didn't exist.

As for the slide itself, that's another ball game. Slides that strip all the soil and leave nothing but rock are extremely difficult to restore. The only way to really restore the slide area is to import soil and plant vegetation. Then there's the issue if the soil can be made to "stick" to the rock and not runoff in the first big rainfall. There's also the problem of accessing the site to get the soil to the slide. On steep slopes your only real option is to use a helicopter and moving thousands of yards via helicopter would bankrupt most landowners.

In a situation like this, if the sky was the limit I'm sure we could develop some sort of mitigation, but I'm not sure what it would be. On slides that don't strip all of the soil it seems best to revegetate the slope and identify the trigger mechinism so we can make sure it doesn't happen again. Sometime this means removing or improving roads or improving drainage features.

There's a lot to evaluate when it comes to slides and I could spend days writing about it, but hopefully this sums things up enough to answer your questions.

One additional thing I'd like to add relative to forest practices and forest land and that is the ever increasing damage done by quads. I recall several situations where logging was being blamed for increasing sediment in a stream and upon investigation it turned out to be quads. These kids were racing up and down a slope that was probably 800 feet long and crossing back and forth across the stream at the bottom. The ruts on the slope were getting so bad that water and sediment was funneled directly into the stream. It was worse than a lot of other problems that I've looked at. If the sediment was coming off an active haul road, they company would be shut down until the situation was corrected.

Can anyone tell me what is the required streamside set back under the current forrest practrices act in Washington. I heard it was only 50 feet. Is that true?

As for the timber industry only doing what was leagal in the past, lets not forget they fought long and hard to be allowed to keep up their destructive practices. Sure they knew about the harm they were doing. But the almighty dollar always comes first. Weyhauser, one of the largest, recently was found guilty of price fixing in an attempt to force small mills out of business. That tells me all I need to know about their corporate citizenship.

Surecatch-

Buffer zones are based on stream type/width, sight potential tree height and basal area along with a couple other factors that play a lesser role. The 50 feet that you heard represents the core zone which is a "no touch" zone, with a couple of exceptions involving roads. Outside of the core is the "inner zone" and then there's the "outer zone". Some management (ie harvest) may take place in the inner and outer zones depending on existing basal area. There are essentially two options that a landowner may choose from. In western washington, the total buffer zone on fish bearing streams can be anywhere from 90-200 feet in width. It's different on the eastside and I don't remember what they are. Buffers are also required on non fish bearing streams, but their is a table that would be difficult to reproduce here that is used to determine the extent of the buffer.

The Deer Creek slide on Deer Creek of the North fork of the Stilly is a lindslide that was caused by logging on fragile soils.

It has all but decimated the Deer Creek run of steelhead.

The damage done by logging is huge, as this is but one example, and many are not nearly as clearly caused.

Wolley:

You are 100% right about the Deer Creek slide, but even then the logging companies tried desperatly to wiggle out of responsibility. I dunno if they ever did fess up, but its' clear they caused that slide.

I see many such slides in the Queen Charlottes where huge clearcuts on steep slopes result in major slides into streams.

How long ago did the deer creek slide happen? Is it a hard one to find? I might have to make a drive to check it out when I have time. Thanks

Dan,

Good point, but an argument could also be made that the changes concerning DDT and its use was one incremental step in changing the way we use chemicals. That is an example of another industry that has had an impact on our environment.

I was over simplifying things, suggesting that the folks who hang out in trees for a few months in a tree they named as the idealists, the folks who say stop logging at all costs. Where the realists look at ways to recycle old timbers, use more recycled paper content in finished goods like cardboard, newpapers, and copier paper, and look at different types of fiber like the hybrid poplar/cottonwood trees.

Eddie,

Another change that has been made as it pertains to export logs is that only trees from private forests may be exported. Trees from State and National forests may only be used for finished products like dimensional lumber, poles etc. This change was made to ensure that our economy benefitted from a number of transaction cycles, not just one or two.

I must say that this conversation has remained very civil, even though this issue has brought out emotions in a number of folks. Good job on sticking to the facts, and refraining from the name calling. I wish more discussions would be like this.

Dogfish, I agree with you about the log exports. One thing to remember however, the "private lands" (Weyerhaeuser, Simpson, Plum Cr., etc) were very often given to these companies for free with the railroad lands that were given in the 1800's. However, they do own the land and I don't know that I or anyone else can question their tactics unless they impact streams or land outside their title boundaries. I would love to see the export of logs stopped so that we can put our very own wood industry professionals to work. But, at least they are not coming from the National Forests. I will say however that taking the amazing stands of the Tongass and turning them into pulp and paper is a real waste and one more example of Sen. Ted Stevens bringing home the bacon for his electorate. Such a waste. I hope that the Forestry industry cleans up their act and protects the environment. As before, I will trust but I will verify.

Dogfish, do you know if the export restriction extends to county and city timber? Just curious, because I think I recall seeing invitations to bid on county timber in the paper that said the timber was export restricted. I was wondering if that was a county decision or it was the same as state and federal timber.

Any municipality. Federal, State, County or City. The City of Bremerton has a HUGE watershed that they manage actively, but none of it can be exported as raw timber.

BTF-
The Deforest Creek Slide (aka Deer Creek slide) occurred during the winter of 1983/84. This event was more of an erosion event than what would be considered to be a "slide". A debris torrent (old logging debris a major component) flowed down Deforest Creek and opened up the toe of the bank. Since the hill side was mostly layered sands and gravels with water piping through the sand lens the exposed hill side "calved" much like a glacier moving upslope. The water flowing out the sand layers would cause the sand to erode away and the layers above would collapse keeping the eroding face more or less vertical. The result is a very impressive (or depressing) scar in the hill side.

It has been estimated that more than a million yards of material flowed into Deer Creek from just this one source. In the 18 months that the "slide" was most active it was estimated that 1,000 yards of material was entering the creek daily. To picture how much material this consider that a 1,000 yards is the same of 100 dump truck loads of material entering the Creek at a single point each and every day. The really depressing stat is that the Deforest Creek was the source of only about 1/2 of the eroding material entering Deer Creek during the 1980s and 90s.

The slide is isolated behind locked gates. However it can be seen from a Forest service road. If one access the upper Deer Creek basin through Seagleson Pass (north and west from Darrington) and continue west you encounter several spots to view the slide from a distance.

Regarding past logging practices - The damage caused to many of our watersheds by excessive logging rates and poor land management decisions means that most of the watersheds will not recover in our life times. It will take decades or even centuries for them to heal. In the trashed basins any continued logging (even with more beign prescriptions) will delay the recovery time. It is akin to picking at scabs keeping the wound a raw sore - which in my opinion is exactly would the current Forest and Fish Laws are doing for many of our basins.

Tight Lines
Smalma

For anyone that is intrested in seeing quite a site, follows Smalmas directions to the Upper Deer Creek basin and see the massive desctruction from the Deforest Creek Slide.

This past summer I drove up into the Deer Creek watershed for the first time to satiate a certain curiosity.

I was impressed by the size and the beauty of the valley but as I previously mentioned, some of the destruction (and in particular the Deforest Cr. slide). as well

Smalma-

That is definitely the biggest event outside of Mt Saint Helens that I've heard of. Sounds like one I need to go see. The 18 months alone would have been close to 1/2 a million yards. I've seen a few slides that probably moved a couple hundred thousand, but nothing that big. The last big slide I looked at was on the humptulips on the donkey creek road. I keep saying I'm going to take the time to calculate how much material came off the hill, but never have the time. It was an interesting slide since it actually ran down the hill and across the river and a couple hundred feet up the oposite bank. We figure when it shot up the other hill it probably created a "dam break flood event". Uggly no matter how you spin it. Thanks for the information.

here is an aerial photo of the deer creek slide...
un-freaking real devestation



thanks to
http://terraserver-usa.com

Thanks for posting the picture piper. I was off doing google searches looking for some additional information. Now if I could only get my stereoscope to work on a computer monitor I've got to talk to a friend of mine tomorrow that works up that way and I'm going to see if I can't con him into taking me in there. Thanks again everyone for the information.

BTF,
If you find your way up there shoot some photos to post. I dont think the aerial does the slide any justice...

I'll bet it is friggen enormous