Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/skagdvd/public_html/forum/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Another Massive Landslide above a Great Steelhead River
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Another Massive Landslide above a Great Steelhead River  (Read 3941 times)
camosled
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 812


View Profile
« on: August 31, 2011, 02:58:20 PM »

I posted a pic a couple years ago featuring a huge 1000 acre cut in the Tillamook State Forest.  Well look what's happening in the middle of that big, bad sale.

JM

Logged

camodrifter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2011, 10:06:00 AM »

very typical for clear cuts in steep areas.  That slide started at the cut slope on the road then caused the entire hill to come down. 

This is yet another example of why clear cutting steep slopes is a very bad idea!
Logged

SSPey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2011, 11:24:13 PM »

It should be apparent that isn't a clearcut, but a thinned forest.  A bit ironic, as forest thinning (combined with reserves) is what many want to see as an alternative to vast seas of clear cuts ... thinning makes jobs, gets wood, and creates more structurally complex and diverse forests than we get with industrial plantations.  To my eyes the biggest problem in that photo is not the thinning overall, but is instead the road and the thinning together in that unstable area of steep convergent topography.  High risk areas like that pictured could be set aside as reserve patches, even if they're just slivers within a managed landscape.  Let those high-risk areas grow big trees, and when they slide (because eventually they will), you've got a chance of delivering a big tree downslope into a stream it forms habitat and holds gravel. 
Logged

skagit mist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144



View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2011, 03:50:55 AM »

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100806/bc_mudslide_100806/20100806?hub=CalgaryHome

The Lilly got hit hard a while back. The whole mountain came down. All chinook and steelhead fishing is pretty much nill. It has coloured up Harrison lake and the river so bad its made for tough fishing even down there. Natural event, not caused by any human. Just mother nature taking its course.
Logged

Northwest winters make steelhead chrome that much brighter

camosled
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 812


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2011, 07:22:35 PM »

It should be apparent that isn't a clearcut, but a thinned forest.  A bit ironic, as forest thinning (combined with reserves) is what many want to see as an alternative to vast seas of clear cuts ... thinning makes jobs, gets wood, and creates more structurally complex and diverse forests than we get with industrial plantations.  To my eyes the biggest problem in that photo is not the thinning overall, but is instead the road and the thinning together in that unstable area of steep convergent topography.  High risk areas like that pictured could be set aside as reserve patches, even if they're just slivers within a managed landscape.  Let those high-risk areas grow big trees, and when they slide (because eventually they will), you've got a chance of delivering a big tree downslope into a stream it forms habitat and holds gravel.  

I agree completely with the above...I should have said that this spot is a selective harvest area, within a 1000  acre sale, mostly clear cut.

The greater problem within the Oregon State Forests Management Plans is the fact that in these areas selectively logged to create older forest structure, for the very reason you mentioned (large woody debris recruitment) no trees older than 85 years are going to be left outside riparian management zones.   Large woody debris comes from logs 85 years and older, so the fact they left some trees, only to cut them down in the future before they can be retained in the system, means nothing really.

I want to push for a 125 age class of trees in the older forest structure plans.  At least at that age, some of them might actually stay in the watershed and benefit juvenile production, as opposed to ending in a log pile in the flood plain and up diced into firewood for some dairy farmer down river.

JM
« Last Edit: September 11, 2011, 07:26:57 PM by camosled » Logged

Pages: [1]
Print
 
Jump to: