The Brush Creek Project is a "model" of public agency and industry
cooperation to restore salmon runs. In reality, Brush Creek is an embarrassing model
of how the timber industry typically degrades the states waters for private profit.
The slopes above Brush Creek were clearcut in the first step of a cooperative restoration
project (among other thing$). Our (public) part was to give (not sell) Sun Studs/Lone
Rock Timber logs from the forests set aside for endangered wildlife species (LSRs),
to put in the creeks they degraded. Here are the Sun Studs land slides resulting
from the project.
Poor Brush Creek FishThis recent clearcut is on Sun Studs land bordering Brush Creek. It is within the Brush Creek Project, taking public logs to help save the fish in the muddied creek. The precious top soil - the giver of life of all parts of our forests - has fallen away from this mountainside. This land is lost forever and the creek is degraded for countless generations of our grandchildren by these landslides. This cruel act of deforestation can be seen all around our county, and is a result of legal logging under the rules of the State Forest Practices Act. We must stop this madness. Unfortunately, the Governor's plan to save endangered salmonids (CSRI), does not stop this kind of logging. In fact, it encourages the kind of forest practices in Brush Creek, and it's tributary, Thistleburn Creek. |
These massive landslides on private land is just one of thousands of examples of clearcuts killing our fish. But this one is different because it is the "example" of how private landowners can "voluntarly" log in ways to enhance fish habitat. State agencies point to this clearcut as proof that the Governor's plan (CSRI) is adequate, and we don't need federal protection for the salmon. This is the famous Brush Creek Project.
Before 1995, a Douglas Fir forest held the soils
on these mountains, and various species, Alder included, supplied cooling shade for
Brush and Thistleburn creeks. Many Douglas Firs were with 200' of these streams,
and would have eventually fallen into the creeks, providing the needed wood pooling
up the creek providing fish habitat. In 1995, Sun Studs clearcut right down to the
water, and left virtually no riparian buffer. The clearcut was the first step
in the plan to save fish. The second step was to go to public land, to a forest
set aside for old-growth species (an LSR), and cut down trees to give to Sun Studs
to place in the creek for fish habitat in-stream. Unfortunately, many of these "in-stream
structures" washed away over the past two winters, and the creeks have been
laid bare to two summers of hot summer sun. Endangered salmon must have cold water
in order to survive. They must also have sediment free, clean water to lay their
eggs. The landslides caused by up-slope clearcutting has wiped out this habitat.
The mountain soils started to give way in early 1996 and have continued since. These
pictures were taken in December 1996.
Numerous fisheries biologists have warned that "in-stream" projects should not be done without also modifying dangerous logging up-slope. This modification of up-slope logging practices (clearcutting) is what Sun Studs was not willing to do. That would have cut into profits. Instead, they put our public trees into the creeks, and claim that they are environmentally correct clearcutters.
What is truly frightening
is that now the state of Oregon has officially sanctioned, and is encouraging this
type of logging, by passing the Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI). They
point to this project as the shining example of what every private timber land owner
should do. They say this type of project is the reason why we don't need federal
ESA protection for endangered fish.
In reality, ESA protection could change up-slope logging practices, and the timber industry doesn't want to change. They want to continue to scrape our hillsides bare, extracting short term profits at the expense of our children, and at the expense of the fishing industry. The timber industry is behind the push to stop federal protection for fish, claiming that they can solve the problem by putting wood in the creeks, and clearcutting as usual.
|
|
The BLM Brush Creek watershed analysis says: "One hundred years ago, runs of
wild Coho in coastal Oregon streams were estimated at 1,400,000 fish per year. In
the 1970s, the Coho troll fishery provided from $60 to $70 million per year in direct
personal income for Oregon coastal communities. In 1993, salmon harvest generated
only $3.5 million - an 85% reduction of economic benefits in six years. The
average number of spawners in 1991-1993 was estimated at 38,000 fish, about 3%
of the historical level stated above." BLM blames clearcutting and road
building for the fish decline in Brush Creek. Because Sun Studs Inc. privately owns so much timber, they are a powerful force in determining the fate of public resources in and around their forests. They can choose to destroy fish habitat, because it's legal and profitable. They have even forced the building of a dangerous, steep, new road through a public Ancient Forest - because they wouldn't make enough profit by helicopter logging. |
|
More slides, all on unit over Brush Ck. |
(Prepared for a field review and discussion of the project involving Lone Rock Timber Co., Oregon Dept. of Forestry, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration Initiative, Pacific Rivers Council, The Oregonian)
Mark Powell, Ph.D. Aquatic Biologist
Colliding Rivers Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 1751, Corvallis, OR 97339This project ignores credible scientific guidance on many important issues. The neglect of good technical advice is likely to limit the project's benefits for fish.
The scientific deficiencies of this project include several features that are encouraged by incentives provided in the Oregon Forest Practices Act Stream Protection Rules.
This project raises questions about the adequacy of the Oregon Forest Practices Act and the appropriateness of some of the Act's incentives. (Note: The Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative acknowledges some of these problems and requests voluntary improvements.)
1) Instream enhancements:
The Brush Creek project relies heavily on the use of short logs (shorter than stream width). Credible science, including guidance from ODFW and ODF, recommends the use of logs longer than 1.5 times stream width. Problems with the use of short logs include: the need for cable anchoring, complete washout during floods (despite anchoring), and the failure to capture debris during floods.
However, the use of short logs can maximize harvest credits available for instream log placement .
2) Riparian logging:
Aggressive removal of riparian alder stands near Brush Creek and Thistleburn Creek neglects modern scientific understanding of riparian forests and their interactions with streams. Problems with riparian logging for 'alder conversion' include: increased solar heating of streams, neglect of the broad ecological functions of riparian vegetation, and future impacts caused by intensive management. Harm caused by riparian logging is often justified by claims of long-term benefits, but planted conifers are not protected over multiple rotations, so they may never reach a large size and fall into streams.
However, intensive management of riparian stands can be profitable, according to an analysis by ODF.
3) Recent landslides demonstrate the harmful effects of logging and roads on unstable slopes:
Logging and roads increase landslide risk, but the harmful consequences of post-logging landslides may be more important for fish. Landslides from recently logged slopes into Brush Creek and Thistleburn Creek delivered sediment but few large logs, causing harm to stream habitat. In contrast, landslides from forested slopes typically deliver large logs and build good stream habitat. Most stream enhancement projects are too small and ineffective to compensate for logging of unstable slopes.
Landslides from forested slopes build good habitat in streams, but stream habitat is usually harmed by landslides from recently logged slopes.
4) Brush Creek enhancements treat only the symptoms of stream degradation, and ignore causes:
The Brush Creek project fails to address the degraded watershed processes that are the causes of poor stream habitat. Instead, enhancements are isolated and ineffective attempts to fix habitat. This strategy has a long record of failure throughout the Northwest and lacks scientific credibility. Many land use practices continue to degrade streams and watersheds in Oregon's private forests, including: rapid clearcutting of large portions of a watershed, logging and roads on unstable slopes, practices that increase erosion and sedimentation, and short rotations that never allow stands to reach maturity.
Where harmful land use practices continue, 'enhancements' are unlikely to promote fisheries recovery.
Just over the ridge from the Brush Creek project, in Andrews Creek, Sun Studs wants to clearcut more of their private land. Again, they need the gift of our public forest resources. This time they need to build a road through some BLM old-growth, another forest set aside to protect endangered species (LSR), to more profitably access their land. BLM scientists looked at the site and were alarmed at how damaging the road would be, and recommended that Sun Studs either helicopter log, or build the road elsewhere. But again, what scientists think is best for our public resources, is not what we get. Not only did BLM grant them the road, they requested Sun Studs to take all the trees standing in the path of the road.
- Clearcuts Cause Landslides : What the scientists say.
- Broken Buck Sale: Public Ancient Forest to be clearcut in Brush Creek headwaters.
