Came across this ad on Salon.com today. I’ve seen a few other forestry-oriented web ads before, such as those featuring Smokey Bear and from the USFS’s DiscoverTheForest.org. I’m collecting such ads, so please let me know when and where you find them — [email protected]. Thanks!
FYI, clicking on this ad takes you to:
http://oclands.org/post-card?gclid=CN2X-5jvjrkCFQdxQgodvmMAmg
Steve
Good post – I have two concerns about the claims on the FAQ page at this site.
1) “If these lands were clearcut, it would deprive Oregonians of natural clean drinking water sources and cost the state millions of dollars in secondary treatment facilities”
—> With BMP’s that have good SMZ buffer and other related practices defined. And considering that under sound forest management (SFM), clearcuts are only going to be used where it is species and site appropriate and where BMP’s and SMZ buffers are sufficient. In addition, SFM would require both spatial and temporal diversity in age classes so the clearcuts aren’t going to happen all at once nor are they going to be contiguous without a significant difference in ages between adjoining stands.
So, given all of that, I just can’t agree that clearcutting done using SFM “would deprive Oregonians of natural clean drinking water sources and cost the state millions of dollars in secondary treatment facilities”
2) “new laws and administrative action will be necessary to ensure their protection for future generations ”
—> Preservation of individual stands won’t protect anything for future generations. Forests are dynamic. The only way to preserve and protect these forests is to manage them to provide for the stand replacement succession necessary to maximize the potential to have stands in the future that are reasonably close to the ones we have now.
Thank you for all of the good work that you do for the SAF.
There was a recent Oregonian story about the community of Rockaway Beach that had to install sand filtration (pre-treatment) on its water supply after timber companies started clearcutting their watershed.
The city of Salem also had to upgrade with water supply after severe storms affected their watershed. The alleged culprit in that case was erosion of fine clays deep-seated slumps, but watershed damage from logging and logging roads also played a role.
I know little about the situation in Rockaway Beach, but Salem’s water filtering system was upgraded primarily because it used an out-dated “slow sand” filtration system that couldn’t handle huge flows during a major storm in 1996.
RE: 1996 Salem, Oregon water filtering system
Source: http://www.breitenbush.com/community/advocacy/advo-fall98.html
“In February 1996, warm wet winds rolled into the Pacific Northwest from Hawaii. Temperatures rose from the 20s to the mid 50s. Rain poured from the sky and snow began to quickly melt. Road after road washed out as the rush of water poured on. Hundreds of culverts gave way and thousands of landslides occurred in clearcuts and plantations filled with Christmas tree sized firs. City after city saw their domestic water supplies damaged by tons of sediment running down the slicked-over mountainsides. Millions of dollars were lost, both from direct damage and business shut downs as water supplies failed. Breitenbush itself spent approximately $80,000 on repair work, most visible in the wall of boulders along the riverbank down by the old pool.
The city of Salem asked its 175,000 water users to voluntarily limit use for over two weeks while the cities filtration system was overwhelmed. Industrial customers were forced to shut down at a loss of over $3 million per day. In response, Salem’s City Council voted to oppose any new timber sales planned by the Detroit Ranger District until the General Accounting Office (GAO) produced a study of the “legacy” effects of past logging. When the Forest Service ignored the request, Salem’s mayor, Mike Swaim, spoke out at a rally.”
Maybe this topic deserves its own thread. But since water quality is a focal point of the ad I mentioned previously, here goes….
A GAO report on the Salem water system and watershed stated:
“A 1997 study commissioned by the governor of Oregon found that
agriculture in the Willamette River basin contributes the greatest amount
of suspended sediment to the river. The study also reported that an
estimated 1.8 million tons of soil is lost each year from erosion on
agricultural lands in the basin.”
And:
“Statewide, agriculture accounted for 39 percent—or more than double forestry’s
17 percent—of all nonpoint water pollution. Boating contributed another
14 percent, while urban runoff contributed an additional 12 percent.”
And:
“According to a 1997 report by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality on water quality in Eugene’s McKenzie River watershed,9 sites in
the upper subbasin—primarily federally owned lands—were relatively free
of point and nonpoint source pollution. Conversely, in the lower
subbasin—on predominantly nonfederal lands—agricultural and urban
runoff was loading the river with soil, organic materials, and other wastes
and pollutants.”
And:
“The 1997 study also found that urban sites in the Willamette River basin
contribute the greatest amount of suspended sediment to the river on a per
acre basis.”
Seems like the enviro groups that signed the O&C letter spend a great deal of time and energy on opposing clearcuts and most other forest management, while ignoring agriculture, urban runoff, boaters, etc.
Steve
Thanks for the big picture