Home > environment > What Will It Take To Save Coho?

What Will It Take To Save Coho?

[From Greg King.]

Earlier this month the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released its long awaited draft Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) Coho Recovery Plan. Though we’ve hardly had a chance to penetrate the 1,400-page document, the first meeting is coming right up:

January 31 – Humboldt Area Foundation 5-8:30 p.m. 373 Indianola Rd. (between Arcata and Eureka). We have asked NMFS to hold future meetings in Arcata or Eureka proper.

For a list of the four additional North Coast meetings, plus a brief analysis of the Coho Recovery Plan and links to the plan itself, see here.

Siskiyou Land Conservancy had significant input in the creation of the Smith River section of the Recovery Plan. The Smith River is the healthiest large watershed in the entire “SONCC” area, yet even here Coho salmon are on the brink of extinction. Add your voice. Let’s not lose this iconic and beautiful symbol of a wild North Coast.

  1. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Stop infrastructure that has new water taps and disallow dense infrastructure altogether. Definitely no big boxes or strip malls, industry that gobbles water. No more clearcutting, stop the logging trucks from pounding the backroads all day every day, creating all kinds of silt and runoff. No exporting. The idea was proposed that the county’s “excess” water in the sum of millions of gallons per day be directed back into the watershed sounds like the way to go with that.

    The truth is, everybody knows where the water’s going and where it went, nobody in positions of power cough up to it because it’s business as usual and that’s often part of their business.

  2. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 9:07 am

    …and prepare for all kinds of ridiculously complicated responses to this topic that deny the simple facts of corporate greed and their neverending battery of propaganda telling us it’s a complicated matter. The atmosphere is wicking so much moisture into immediate runnoff as it is, thanks to particulate pollution from cars and industry worldwide. Billions of first worlders, flushing toilets all day drinking bottled water and all gotta have shiny clean cars. Rich country clubs watering their golf courses in the middle of global drought, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc….somebody in power needs to be real about it and not let up.

  3. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 9:13 am

    How about stop eating salmon?

  4. Bolithio
    January 27, 2012 at 9:21 am

    What will it take?

    It is going to take rational thought, in planning and implementation, if we want to ‘save’ coho and other salmonids.

    Beyond damns and extensive agriculture, commercial fishing is the elephant in the room. Particularly where Russian and Japanese ships routinely dragnet whole populations of fish.

  5. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 9:41 am

    legalize pot. Farming and development use water, forests conserve it, Return the Eel R. water. Remove obstacles to fish passage. Restore watershed headwaters. Sue polluters.

  6. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Bolithio, who is employed by the logging industry, says: “Beyond damns and extensive agriculture, commercial fishing is the elephant in the room.

    Commercial fishing is kaput if the fish can’t breed in the first place. The waters that run through the forests of this county are critical to the species survival. Commercial fishing is nothing if the fish can’t breed in the first place. Locally, one of the real elephants in the room is the army of logging trucks and their related industry.

  7. Bolithio
    January 27, 2012 at 11:46 am

    If anyone wish’s to have a adult conversation about this, I am game. If people are going to use emotional arguments and scream insults, we have nothing to gain. Homie dont play that.

    We have previously seen 3 major eras of logging on the North Coast. The turn of the century, the 50-60s boom, and the 80’s-90’s period. They each had their own contributions. It is with out doubt that the 50-60s period was the most impactive to fish. Ask anyone who was alive then what they remember about the hills around here in that period.

    By the 80-90s, the regulations had caught up with the science, but the enforcement had not. Still, the dramatic impacts from the previous periods were not occurring (at least to fish).

    Now, the Water Board has established the Basin Plan, which serves as the policy for watershed restoration and the maintenance and protection of our water resource. Timber Harvest regulation currently is the ONLY mechanism that regularly is implementing this Basin Plan on the North Coast. With the exception of work done on grants, which are more focused on in-stream restoration, THPs/NTMPs in the last 20 years have treated an enormous amount of point source sediment sources from our watersheds.

    I believe its important to recognize the effects from the past, and that these mitigation points in THPs are 95% of the time addressing impacts of 30+ years ago – not from modern logging practices.

    I am no ‘shill’ for timber companies as people here regularly accuse me of. I dont hold allegiance to any company, mill or what ever. I do not deny the effects of the past. I, and the foresters who work in this community, have been trained to understand what effects of logging can harm fisheries, and how to mitigate against those effects. Timber managers in the past were not.

    If you believe clear cutting harms fish, do you know why and how?

    I want someone – who doesn’t bark insults – to explain to me how a clear cut, in a modern forestry/logging context, adversely effects fish.

    Not because I am promoting clear cutting, not because I love green diamond. But because I favor rational discourse and debate.

  8. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    The Maxxam era only lasted 20 years but negative impacts will endure for a hundred. They touted their practices as state of the art after realizing there was more money in farming the government by holding their postage stamp headwaters hostage. Most of the PL property contained vital streams with easily eroded geology and high rainfall. These streams need to recover for the genetic pool to be diverse enough for wild Coho to continue. Clearcutting in the former PL sheds is a formula for extirpation.

  9. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Bolithio, who is employed by the logging industry, says: “If anyone wish’s to have a adult conversation about this, I am game. If people are going to use emotional arguments and scream insults, we have nothing to gain. Homie dont play that.”

    I haven’t done anything of the sort, simply providing disclosure and mentioning one of the very real elephants in humboldt’s living room, which somebody in your employ will not address disregard to said employ.

    Bolithio continues: “I believe its important to recognize the effects from the past, and that these mitigation points in THPs are 95% of the time addressing impacts of 30+ years ago – not from modern logging practices.”

    30+ years ago, people in Bolithio’s position were saying the same thing.

  10. Thirdeye
    January 27, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    “The atmosphere is wicking so much moisture into immediate runnoff as it is, thanks to particulate pollution from cars and industry worldwide.”

    WTF is that gibberish supposed to mean?

    Illegal subdivisions and pot farms in headwaters areas have a huge impact. If pot farmers and back-to-the-landers want to point a finger at the timber industry, they need to look in the mirror first. We need a strictly-enforced system of water drafting permits that prevents withdrawals at from the low-order streams that are critical to the water supply for anadrodromous fish habitat. Make them mitigate the sediment sources on their roads. Throw the book at ’em for all their environmental violations.

    Palco’s land management practices were among the least sustainable in the business before Maxxam came along. They carved more roads and skid trails on bad ground than just about anybody. They didn’t reforest. Most of the lasting damage on HRC lands is from the Palco era that is viewed with such misty-eyed nostalgia.

  11. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Eco-groovy pot farmers aren’t eco-groovy after all.They are greed-heads, just like the rest of the high-talking hypocrites.

  12. Ponder z
    January 27, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Anon 9:03, shit is running out of your ears. Are you on dope too. And to all you other progs that think the same a Anon 9:03, get a dose of reality. The fish are being wiped out by big fishing ships. This have been going on the 40 years. Off our coast. Its like math. If one and two dont make it back to the river to spawn. Three is never born. Get it now? All the eco crap you spew is BS and is only a minor factor to fish reduction. One other factor you assclowns dont bring up is the runoff form growers. What are your numbers on this? Ya, take a bong hit on that.

  13. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    “30+ years ago, people in Bolithio’s position were saying the same thing”
    That may be true, but it’s an oversimplification to say advances haven’t been made. I know several people even from Earth First who have gone into advanced forestry studies, earned degrees, and are now working in the forests and in research to advance sane management in the timber industry. It speaks volumes that those guided by sincere love of their natural home are willing to enter the daunting realm of HSU’s foresty program and extractive enterprise to make positive change, That said, Fish and game and the State and Regional Bds. have historically dropped the ball on the Coho. Politics have ruined the process of protecting the commons in the same way it has failed to protect our economy. Maybe it’s the lobbyists that should be named, exposed and be somehow held accountable.

  14. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Lest we forget, Judy Bari was foremost a labor organizer.

  15. Bolithio
    January 27, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    30+ years ago, people in Bolithio’s position were saying the same thing.

    Actually, I dont think that is true. 30 years ago Foresters didnt evaluate for cumulative effects in watersheds. They didnt apply riparian buffers. There were no limitations on clear-cut size, position, or age. They didnt design logging roads to be mid-slope or on ridges. They didnt design stream crossings to handle the storm events we experience here. And they certainly weren’t running around fixing problem areas from yesteryears.

    Scientific studies made their mark though, and over time, as knowledge grew, culture did too. You don’t just flip a switch on a 300+ year pioneer mentality civilization. Its remarkable, really, how far we have come and so quickly.

    You can also apply this 30 year hindsight to practically every part of our lives. Medicine, physics, computers, climate science, and on…

  16. another
    January 27, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Third Eye, you are confused. You said “Palco’s land management practices were among the least sustainable in the business before Maxxam came along.”

    Before Maxxam came along, the company was called PL, not Palco. PL’s practices were not perfect, but they were more sustainable than any of the other company’s.

    Bolithio, if you have to ask how clearcutting impacts river habitat and fish, you should go back to school.

  17. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Bolithio said, “in a modern forestry/logging context”. This means a context that makes provisions to mitigate the river impacts.
    So, either you respond within that context and argue the merits of deficiencies of those modern provisions, or YOU go back to school to learn how modern forestry/logging differs from your 1960s stereotype.

  18. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Ask the coho where the silty water is coming from in our coastal watersheds. You can follow the muddy water but it won’ lead you to the lands owned by the big bad timber companies. Its no fucking mystery people.

  19. January 27, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    It’s all tied to the capitalist value system of money first. If you can’t change that; everything else is pointless.

  20. jr
    January 27, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Right on, Moviedad. To quote Randy Newman, “It’s money that matters.”

  21. Anonymous
    January 27, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    I read the lower eel section and it is interesting how these bioagencies continually point at timber harverting as the issue and pretty muchgive a low impact to water diversions and loss of estuary rearing grounds. i guess theyre really looking for deep pockets. Bolithio is right, the thp permit is restoring more of the watershed than a DFG that wont get real fish counts because they know there are more fish spawning on working timberlands than parks.

  22. What Now
    January 27, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    “moviedad says:
    January 27, 2012 at 8:21 pm
    It’s all tied to the capitalist value system of money first. If you can’t change that; everything else is pointless.”

    THERE’S the REAL elephant in the room.
    Thank you, M.D.

  23. another
    January 27, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    7:32 said: “This means a context that makes provisions to mitigate the river impacts.”

    Such as?

    Be specific. Tell us where supposed “mitigations” have been applied, evaluated, and proven effective.

  24. back in the saddle
    January 28, 2012 at 7:58 am

    The amount of fish that return to the river mainly have to do with the amount of food available in the ocean. Ever see a really large downriver salmonid? Not enough food in the river to get big. That is why they evolved to go to the ocean. When the ocean gets warm offshore here, the fish go north and compete with all the fish up there for the same amount of food. The spawning grounds in the rivers have been improved, but they need more work. The absolute best thing for the salmon is if people died off.

  25. Anonymous
    January 28, 2012 at 8:35 am

    chimps with guns

  26. Anonymous
    January 28, 2012 at 9:54 am

    “Tell us where supposed “mitigations” have been applied, evaluated, and proven effective.”

    If you have to ask, you should go back to school.
    Or you could read Bolithio’s 11:46 am post.

  27. Anonymous
    January 28, 2012 at 10:51 am

    9:54…In general, most of the sediment related impacts from logging are road use. Despite a decade of road improvement, there continue to be enoumous amounts of Controllable Sediment Sources in our watersheds that can be corrected. This is primarily occurring on managed timberlands as a condition of permit approval. At some point however, when the majority of roads are fixed, the impacts from logging are going to be relatively higher.

  28. Another
    January 28, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Anonymous 9:54, it’s obvious you don’t know much about this subject, which is why you can not answer my question.

    Suggestion. You reread Bolithio’s post and extract the part you believe answer the question: Where have mitigations been applied, evaluated and proven effective?

    Bluster is no substitute for brains.

  29. Bolithio
    January 28, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Another: Where have mitigations been applied, evaluated and proven effective?

    Mitigation is applied to every commercial timber harvest in CA. These are in the form of riparian buffers, acreage limitations, equipment limitations, road BMPs, and on…

    This is what is being applied now (as it relates to fish and their habitat):

    Here is an example of type of study we see guide the formation of Forest Practice Rules and how they are implemented. Much more can be found in the document I linked above.

    BOF (State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2008. Staff report for the scientific literature review of forest management effects on riparian function for anadromous salmonids. Sacramento, CA. 12 p. plus Appendices (including Appendix 3–Primers). Primers are available online at: http://www.bof.fire.ca.gov/board_committees/technical_advisory_committee_(tac)_/tac_documents/

  30. Another
    January 28, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Maybe this is just semantics.

    Riparian buffers, acreage limitations, equipment limitations, road BMPs, and on…, to me these seem more like regulations. I think of mitigation as something done after the damage has occurred that is supposed to fix it, or fix some other place to call it equal.

    Bottom line: are the regulations being enforced? The fact that so many of our rivers are listed as impaired would indicate that regulations are either insufficient or are not being enforced. I’m guessing it is the latter.

  31. tra
    January 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    Yes, Another (1:00pm), I think you’re misunderstanding the use of the word “mitigation,” which does not necessarily mean “after the fact.” Regulations require logging companies to “mitigate” the environmental impacts of logging both during and after harvest operations.

    To what extent those regulations are sufficient, and to what extent they are sufficiently enforced, is another question. I certainly acknowlege, as I think most people do, that forest practices have improved significantly, compared to what was happening in the 50’s, or even in the 80’s and 90’s.

    But have things really improved to the point where logging is doing no significant damage to these watersheds (or even, as some logging advocates claim, is improving watersheds), and the only remaining logging-related impacts are “legacy effects” of poor practices in the past?

    I realize that I don’t have the expertise or experience to say for sure one way or the other, but I feel it is reasonable to be skeptical of these kinds of claims, in part because the industry was making similar claims in the 80’s and 90’s, and they clearly weren’t true back then. In other words, a lack of credibility is yet another “legacy effect” that the timber industry must deal with.

    So my advice with to those who are representing the modern timber industry is to err on the side of caution when making your claims, because from the point of view of many in the public, you’re already starting with a bit of a credibility deficit.

  32. Thirdeye
    January 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    @Another, you seem to be inventing your own arbitrary definition of “mitigation.” The word applies to preventive measures as well as remedial measures.

    You bet regulations are enforced. It took a few years after the passage of the Forest Practices Act for enforcement to get in gear, but enforcement is very tight. Timber harvesting is reviewed by multiple agencies who frequently make recommendations for compliance.

    Just repeating the old meme about the old Palco practicing sustainable forestry doesn’t make it true. Their partial cuts looked prettier than clearcuts from the highway, but they were creating a disaster. Their rate of ground disturbance was phenomenal. Most of their yarding was cat yarding. Their whole land “management” strategy was avoiding cash outlays for higher standard roads, reforestation, and stand management, and lowering the company’s tax profile. It was a short-sighted strategy that started catching up with them in the late ’70s.

  33. Thirdeye
    January 28, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    tra, once you comprehend the amount of disturbance to low order stream channels from pre-FPR practices, it is easy to see the scale of legacy effects. Stream channels were preferred yarding corridors for years and years. Road systems designed around early yarding practices were typically constructed near major stream channels. The skepticism you cite is largely from those who find discussion of legacy effects politically inconvenient because their goal is to shut down logging rather than limit its impacts.

  34. tra
    January 28, 2012 at 2:34 pm


    Perhaps I wasn’t clear — I don’t doubt the seriousness of the legacy effects.

  35. January 28, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    So lets bring the discussion back to deciding on how to protect the coho. The non-managed timberlands are a good start. Lots of oversized 4x4s driving year-round on dirt roads without rock surfacing or proper drainage. You’ve gotta have your head in the sand to not see it.

    Secondly, sucking headwater springs, seeps, and watercourses dry in the summer to grow weed is kinda a no-brainer.

    The people in the hills don’t need to police themsleves because the agencies such as NMFS, DFG, and WQ are too busy whacking the timber industry over the head to overcompensate for the problems the growers.

  36. Another
    January 28, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Bolitho, thanks for the links.
    tra, I’m in complete agreement with your 1:50 post.
    Thirdeye, there is no doubt timber harvest regs, as written, are better for sustainability of timber and other watershed resources like coho. Are they working? It is too soon to tell, but I like the regulatory trend.

    We can thank the… OMG…the…OH I can’t say it….
    OK – we can thank the GD Environmentalists for the improved regulations.

  37. Thorstein Veblen
    January 28, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Read the article again. It specifically mentions the Smith River, the most pristine, least logging, least homesteader/pot grower, as still having coho problems. So, the river is half of it, perhaps. But the other half of the equation is offshore.

    Yes, restoration of spawning habitat is critical, plus a healthy environment for spawners and young fish alike, especially on the Klamath River. But what good does it do if the fish never make it back to the river?

  38. neomoderate
    January 28, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    Pretty much any honest scientist involved with fisheries right now will say that ocean conditions have and do play a huge role. Logging practices had some big effects too, as did ’64. Rivers are recovering, slowly. It’s geology, after all. Something is going on in the ocean, which is not thoroughly understood. Point to all of them together, and you’ve got a problem. I will say it’s depressing to look at what’s been done to the Columbia drainage, and to drive along Trinity lake and know that at one time all those amazing streams were spawning habitiat. I’d also like to see the Yurok go a little easier on the fish – damn, there were a lot of nets in the water this year. Don’t know how any fish made it upstream.

    Our rivers, some of them, have always been (relatively speaking) choked with sediment. Land practices haven’t helped, and there are rivers that have been hosed, but it’s largely geology – the eel and mad are supposed to run brown when it rains.

  39. January 29, 2012 at 8:22 am

    Neo’s got it right about the geology, The younger Francisan sediments are much more prone to erosion than older deposits. But Neo, there is no doubt that some of that “urbidity is controllable.

    Everyone in the watershed needs to do their part. I would suspect that many small time growers are making about the same $ as a small non-industrial timberland owner, However, I’m not seeing the same contributions being made to fixing and maintaining roads, which are the biggest sources of controllable sediment. Its not socieconomic its cultural…many of these guys just don’t care. Hell, its happening in the backyard of one of Humboldt’s biggest environmental groups but yet ???. I guess no big coroporate pockets means no lawsuits huh?

  40. Bolithio
    January 29, 2012 at 9:53 am

    Good point guys, i think we are more or less on the same page.

    A note on sustainability. If any of you ever get a chance, browse through the 1963 areal photos of Humboldt county. There are several local agencies that have them available. In this set, you will see the scale of the logging that occurred beginning in the 1950s. Due to a silly tax policy, almost every landowner waxed their timber.

    People often say that PL/Maxxam were unsustainable. As a company, it appears that was true. But what about the forest itself? It turns out forests grow back. The old growth resource is un-replaceable. But the forests dont stop functioning. Considering the scale of logging in the 50-60s, followed by the scale of logging in 80s under Maxxam, and now the logging under HRC – it is actually pretty hard to argue that any of the practices – when considering trees – were unsustainable.

  41. Another
    January 29, 2012 at 11:35 am

    “Hell, its happening in the backyard of one of Humboldt’s biggest environmental groups but yet ???. I guess no big coroporate pockets means no lawsuits huh?”

    What group is that? Who, exactly, would an environmental group sue? Lawsuits are useless to combat harmful grows. Again, it all comes down to enforcement.

    Bolithio, your analysis of sustainability ignores the inferior quality of the wood and the impacts to the watershed. And in some places, the trees do not grow back.

  42. Anonymous
    January 29, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    Bolithio, who works for the logging companies, says: “But what about the forest itself? It turns out forests grow back. The old growth resource is un-replaceable. But the forests dont stop functioning. ”

    You, sir, are a real piece of work, to call yourself a “forester” and say something like that. The elephant in the room is the rape of the planet’s vegetation. The towering organic canopy over the lush earth beneath, feeding the valleys and the sky…in constant disruption from logging. It needs to be left alone for hundreds of years at this point just to BEGIN to repair the irreplaceable loss. Yet people like Bolithio keep spewing their rhetoric that everything’s fine, just like in the good ol’ days.

  43. Thirdeye
    January 29, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    Towering, lush canopies “feeding valleys and the sky.” Wow, how do they do that? You wouldn’t be spouting touchy-feely nonsense, would you? You can’t say why it needs to be untouched for “hundreds of years just to BEGIN to recover” any more than you can say how lush green canopy feeds the sky. We get it, you just want logging to stop. We’ll remember that next time you talk about sustainable forestry and how environmentalists really want a healthy local economy.

  44. dwayne montane
    February 1, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    Obviously historic land use practices led to the demise of our great salmon runs. Logging practices have improved some today, however the continued cumulative effects of subdivision and water withdrawals clearly contribute. The elephant in the room that the environmentalists can’t face is eating salmon contributes to their decline. I remember being at an “enviro” meeting once and heard someone say “we want to save the fish, so we can eat them”. Most at the meeting agreed. They then went on to eat a salmon dinner.

  45. Anonymous
    February 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Dwayne, fishing regs do not allow anglers to keep wild steelhead or coho and only a limited number of wild chinook from the Smith, Klamath and Trinity rivers, but only if the runs are large enough. Ocean fishing has been very restricted for years.In some years, there was no ocean fishing allowed.

    Timber companies continue to get permits to clearcut and developers get permits to build, and gravel companies get permits to do their deeds. All these things hurt salmon.

    You are suggesting that people should not be allowed to harvest hatchery fish to eat? That Indian tribes who’ve depended on salmon for thousands of years should not be allowed to eat fish? But timber, development and mining get to kill salmon?

    What a twisted perspective.

  46. Bolithio
    February 2, 2012 at 8:05 am

    Anon at 5:37; How does a clearcut harm salmon? (Please do not respond with insults. Just simply state what it is about a clear cut that harms fish)

  47. February 2, 2012 at 8:19 am

    ” Just simply state what it is about a clear cut that harms fish”

    1. water temp
    2. erosion

  48. dwayne montane
    February 2, 2012 at 8:34 am

    Anon 5:37, I don’t think people with fishing poles are the problem, but the massive commercial fishing done in the North Pacific (where most of our salmon go). Wild salmon are superior to hatchery salmon and i really don’t think hatchery fish are the answer. In the instance i mentioned in the post above, they were gleefully eating wild salmon caught off of Alaska. Of course, logging contributes to sediment in our rivers, but to just look at the on shore actions and not at what’s going on in the ocean is part of the problem. Surely you can agree with that.

  49. Anonymous
    February 2, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Massive commercial fishing? Not off our coast. Our commercial fishing industry has practically disappeared.

    You could move to Alaska and try to change their fishing regs, if they bother you.

    Obviously what happens in the ocean is part of the equation, but blaming people who eat salmon is not going to solve any problems.

  50. Anonymous
    February 2, 2012 at 9:21 am

    There are many studies showing the negative impacts of clearcutting on salmon habitat. A quick Google search gave these:


  51. Bolithio
    February 2, 2012 at 9:33 am


    Here is a brief synergy from the links I posted above. In 1999 a scientific panel reviewed the available literature, reviewed THPS and the regulations driving them. They then provided recommendations to the board of forestry, which eventually incorporated them into the FPRs. This started with the Threatened and Impaired watershed rules in 2001, followed by the Coho Watershed Rules in 2008, and ultimately revised into the more comprehensive Anadromous Salmonid Protection Rules (2010).

    1. Water Temp. Currently, for fish bearing streams, the required overstory canopy retention is 80% beyond the no-cut areas along the core zone of the watercourse. Effective shade, which the EPA uses to asses potential temperature effects is a measure of overstory, understory, and topographic shade. Thus, with a 30′ no-cut core on both sides of fish bearing stream, along with the overstory requirements, we are managing for an effective shade of 100% along these streams.

    In Class II streams (provide habitat for aquatic life, but not fish), all streams which have flows capable of providing nutrients to a Class I, and/or are potential recruiters of large woody debris , receive that same protection as a Class I for the 1,000′ feet from their confluence. (Class II Large)

    Standard Class II are required to maintain 50% total overstory. The incised nature of these lower order watercourses increase their topographic shade level, thus increasing their overall effective shade to levels beyond what the EPA calls “natural shade”.

    (In all the TDMLs I have read, the EPA defines natural shade as the target, and this target is between 66% and 85% effective shade)

    While air is generally a poor conductor of heat, direct solar radiation to a water body leads to the significant temperature increases. This is why the scientific literature reviews ultimately led the policy makers to adopt regulations that contain the above measures.

    2. Sediment. While in-unit erosion from overland flow was a concern in the past, the application of riparian buffers effectively act as a filter strip for those processes. The concentration of water, particularly in areas without vegetative filter strips can lead to direct sediment inputs. These are most often associated with roads, skid roads, and watercourse crossings. In the past, there were very dramatic practices which resulted in huge sediment inputs. Today these potential impacts are recognized and mitigated through he application of BMPs: requirements at stream crossings, winter period restrictions, road surfacing and stabilization, and so on.

    Ill bet the house that the suspended sediment loads are much higher in a small private-dope configuration such as mid Redwood Creek then the intensively managed industrial watersheds such as Maple Creek.

  52. Anonymous
    February 5, 2012 at 10:23 am

    bolithio, who works for the logging companies, says exactly what they want him to say, otherwise they never would have given him the job in the first place.

    Stop the clearcutting tomorrow, Bolithio, you’re a fucking liar and hypocrite.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s