# Ground Disturbance



## slowp (Jan 29, 2011)

Ground disturbance: A discussion.

Here's a picture taken on Wednesday of a skyline corridor after it was used. Steep ground plus proper rigging and tower height make for good lift which makes for very little ground disturbance.







Next week, we shall see if the logger proposed method of shovel bunching (using a loader) and placing slash on the skid trails holds up enough to log in a damp area. 

View attachment 170125


----------



## slowp (Jan 29, 2011)

Same corridor looking uphill towards the landing. Note the stump cut low for yarding over.






View attachment 170132


----------



## floyd (Jan 29, 2011)

It was done very successfully above me a few yrs ago on Longview ground.

I did not see what they set the slash with.

I was up there in the dry & it looked very nice. Did not see much compaction.


----------



## bitzer (Jan 29, 2011)

Good pics. Selective? Sometimes you have to pile that brush awfully thick to keep moving over the squishy stuff.


----------



## paccity (Jan 30, 2011)

bitzercreek1 said:


> Good pics. Selective? Sometimes you have to pile that brush awfully thick to keep moving over the squishy stuff.


 
looks like thining.


----------



## slowp (Jan 30, 2011)

paccity said:


> looks like thining.



That's what it is, with a few tiny little patch cuts. Very tiny.


----------



## 8433jeff (Jan 30, 2011)

Slowp-fair comparison? Are they paid differently? Is the volume enough to justify a skyline? As steep as the the pictured job? I could see tracked machines having a chance, given enough room, but thats awful steep for wheeled ones. But I live on the plains, what do I know...


----------



## forestryworks (Jan 30, 2011)

What is the age of that stand?


----------



## slowp (Jan 30, 2011)

I'm thinking around 50 or 60 years. I need to check on that. This is in an old burn that occured in the early 19teens or twenties. Some of the area was replanted by the CCC and some came back naturally.


----------



## slowp (Jan 30, 2011)

8433jeff said:


> Slowp-fair comparison? Are they paid differently? Is the volume enough to justify a skyline? As steep as the the pictured job? I could see tracked machines having a chance, given enough room, but thats awful steep for wheeled ones. But I live on the plains, what do I know...



The logger bids the job. This is pretty good timber and it is being hauled to four different mills. It is good enough to justify the sort and the long trucking. The purchaser who buys the entire sale, has to bid accordingly also. Yes, they are making a profit with the skyline. 

We would not allow any ground skidding equipment on that hill. If not skyline, it would be sold as helicopter, which is even spendier.


----------



## madhatte (Jan 30, 2011)

Near Yacolt, I'm guessing? Steep ground indeed. 

I need to post some pics to show the minor variation we use because we have shallower slopes and gravelly soil. Perhaps I'll even talk about root rot and equipment.


----------



## RPM (Jan 31, 2011)

Slowp does the State FS do any fertilizer (aerial applications) after these thinnings? When would the next entry be planned ... are these 2-3 pass before the original stand is harvested?


----------



## slowp (Jan 31, 2011)

RPM said:


> Slowp does the State FS do any fertilizer (aerial applications) after these thinnings? When would the next entry be planned ... are these 2-3 pass before the original stand is harvested?



Nope, and unless the current way of thinking. or power changes, it probably won't be harvested again. The current plans for most of the area is to "Restore" the forest. Restored to what? I do not know.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 1, 2011)

Weird. We re-visit our sale areas every 15 years or so, removing 15% or so each time. We're selling some really nice second-growth and prairie-colonization timber now, averaging around 1mbf/tree, 26" DBH, <60 years old, and always leaving a standing forest. There's no one-size-fits-all prescription, so every sale is different, but in general, I think our program is very successful, even with the disturbance caused by multiple entries.


----------



## Gologit (Feb 1, 2011)

madhatte said:


> Weird. We re-visit our sale areas every 15 years or so, removing 15% or so each time. We're selling some really nice second-growth and prairie-colonization timber now, averaging around 1mbf/tree, 26" DBH, <60 years old, and always leaving a standing forest. There's no one-size-fits-all prescription, so every sale is different, but in general, I think our program is very successful, even with the disturbance caused by multiple entries.


 
Sounds like a good program. Too bad some of the other agencies can't have that kind of attitude and foresight.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 1, 2011)

Y'wanna know how we pull it off? It's simple: we don't have stockholders, we don't have a maximum or minimum cut, and we have FSC certification. That adds up to a freedom, or rather an obligation, to practice forestry that performs over the long term, rather than showing a short-term profit. I know it's a unique situation, but I suspect that if we can prove our methodology to be sound enough, perhaps it'll catch on.


----------



## earache (Feb 1, 2011)

madhatte, that is very similar to the way stands are managed around here. I've worked in a few different areas that are managing hundred year rotations. In that scenario, they will open up a timber sale every ten to fifteen years. If they feel that there is too much disturbance, they will adjust the harvest. In these stands, they also had us open up very large canopy gaps. Most likely to see this type of management and harvesting is on county lands and large timber company lands.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 2, 2011)

County lands? Timber companies? Wow. Those are the last outfits I would expect to be so progressive. I'm impressed.


----------



## RPM (Feb 2, 2011)

Pacific Forest Products used to be a larger company on Vancouver Island and had both private and crown (public ) land operations. They were heavily invested in their private forest holdings through thinnings, prunning, fertilization, etc. Long term thinking and probably the best example in BC at the time. Almost text book examples in really prime 2nd growth stands (Mostly Doug-fir and Hemlock).

They were bought out by another company around 1996/7 whose major share interest was John Hancock MutualLife. Long term planning changed from looking 50-100 years out to 3 month quarters and whether or not the return to the share holders was being met. Needless to say anyone with a stake in John Hancock did well with the old Pacific Forest Products woodlands contributing. There are a bunch of really, really big clearcuts in that area now and all that prevous work for not. Lots of jobs gone too! Cash is king!


----------



## Gologit (Feb 2, 2011)

madhatte said:


> County lands? Timber companies? Wow. Those are the last outfits I would expect to be so progressive. I'm impressed.


 
There _are_ timber companies who believe in responsible forestry. Two good examples:

Certified Forests | The Collins Companies


Soper-Wheeler Co.

I've had first hand experience with both of these companies. They're not exaggerating or making false claims for their stewardship.

I'm not blind to the fact that one of the driving forces in their methods is financial gain. Of course it is...and it should be. I'm just pointing out that it is possible to combine a high sense of forest ethics, harvest timber, and still make money. It's encouraging when it happens and it happens more often than a lot of people think.


----------



## paccity (Feb 2, 2011)

very true, i have seen a big change around here after weyrhauser did ther little hostile take over of wilamette ind, they are takeing and when there done they will prob sell it off.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 2, 2011)

Hancock are among the worst of the bunch as far as land-stewardship "bad guys" go. I don't think they even look at the land except as an abstraction. Champion weren't much better, but at least they were a forest products outfit. Hancock selling timber is like McDonald's selling car stereos.


----------



## slowp (Feb 2, 2011)

Can you find the skid trail?


----------



## 8433jeff (Feb 2, 2011)

slowp said:


> Can you find the skid trail?


 
No picture, slowp.


----------



## Cedarkerf (Feb 2, 2011)

madhatte said:


> Hancock are among the worst of the bunch as far as land-stewardship "bad guys" go. I don't think they even look at the land except as an abstraction. Champion weren't much better, but at least they were a forest products outfit. Hancock selling timber is like McDonald's selling car stereos.


 
I agree, Hancock is mowing the white river corridor like the front lawn, its amazing to watch the trees disappearing at such a high rate over such massive areas.


----------



## Gologit (Feb 2, 2011)

*Cut and run*

That's the same thing Maxxam did when they took over Pacific Lumber Company in California. PL had been cutting their own timber on a sustained yield basis for many years.

Maxxam came in and started cutting everything they could get their hands on as fast as they could. They creamed the woods, then filed bankruptcy.

This is kind of a long read but it's probably the most accurate description of what happened that I've found.

Pacific Lumber Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## raycarr (Feb 3, 2011)

I know someone that had a picture of that Texan Whorowizz with several bullet holes in it.


----------



## Humptulips (Feb 5, 2011)

IMHO thinning is a huge mistake on the coast and I'll be darned if I can see why anyone would consider reentering every 15 years unless your goal is to minimize profit and maximize stand damage. 
All of that has nothing to do with sustainable harvest either.


----------



## slowp (Feb 6, 2011)

Humptulips said:


> IMHO thinning is a huge mistake on the coast and I'll be darned if I can see why anyone would consider reentering every 15 years unless your goal is to minimize profit and maximize stand damage.
> All of that has nothing to do with sustainable harvest either.



Here, it all has to do with politics. What can be done without going to court. Thinning is usually acceptable to the people who sue. Mention clearcut and all the legal B.S. to stop it begins. 

I have no idea what is planned for the future. I don't think anybody does. We used to joke about the five minute plan. I don't think that exists anymore, either.


----------



## forestryworks (Feb 6, 2011)

slowp said:


> it all has to do with politics


 
:msp_cursing:

They should just let professionals, standing behind good, tried and true science and methods, do what they know needs to be done.

But that would only work in a perfect world I suppose.

Sure, mistakes were made in the past, but without mistakes there would be no knowledge!


----------



## Gologit (Feb 6, 2011)

forestryworks said:


> :msp_cursing:
> 
> They should just let professionals, standing behind good, tried and true science and methods, do what they know needs to be done.
> 
> ...


 
Well said.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 6, 2011)

Every site and every sale are different and require flexibility in both law and action. Washington's FPA is pretty good at allowing this flexibility, but is often superseded by Federal mandates and profit margins. I don't know local law in other states. What I do know is that foresters are retiring faster than they are being replaced, and the kind of well-considered decisions they make are being made by stockholders instead. 

What we need is more foresters, more people with feet on the ground and eyes in the canopy, who can look beyond this quarter's profits and plan for a given forest's condition 20, 50, 100 years out. To look at a forest, rather than a simple crop. Trees aren't corn, and by the way, corn farmers, you can't just aggressively monocrop a piece of land indefinitely without expecting soil deterioration.


----------



## 8433jeff (Feb 6, 2011)

madhatte said:


> Every site and every sale are different and require flexibility in both law and action. Washington's FPA is pretty good at allowing this flexibility, but is often superseded by Federal mandates and profit margins. I don't know local law in other states. What I do know is that foresters are retiring faster than they are being replaced, and the kind of well-considered decisions they make are being made by stockholders instead.
> 
> What we need is more foresters, more people with feet on the ground and eyes in the canopy, who can look beyond this quarter's profits and plan for a given forest's condition 20, 50, 100 years out. To look at a forest, rather than a simple crop. Trees aren't corn, and by the way, corn farmers, you can't just aggressively monocrop a piece of land indefinitely without expecting soil deterioration.


 
No, and that was happening less and less until the ethanol boondoggle really hit its stride about three years ago. Without that, prices for corn and soybeans and other crops corn is replacing would be nowhere near the level they are now.


----------



## Humptulips (Feb 6, 2011)

slowp said:


> Here, it all has to do with politics. What can be done without going to court. Thinning is usually acceptable to the people who sue. Mention clearcut and all the legal B.S. to stop it begins.
> 
> I have no idea what is planned for the future. I don't think anybody does. We used to joke about the five minute plan. I don't think that exists anymore, either.



I understand exactly what you're saying. I last plan I read for the Humptulips drainage and Quinault ridge basically called for thinning it and never touching it again. Some huge blowdowns here that should be cleaned up but that would involve clearcuts so no way. Funny thing is it's already clearcut by nature but that's good as long as the wood stays on the ground.

But back to the original topic though. I've always thought a little ground distubance to be a good thing. Those young trees really like them clear spots.


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Feb 6, 2011)

> They should just let professionals, standing behind good, tried and true science and methods, do what they know needs to be done.



And you end up damned if you do, damned if you don't it seems.

You get old, well managed private forests that get sold to the likes of Maxxam or John Hancock.

The folks who led forestry efforts back in the early 1900s in Connecticut advocated public ownership because the time frame for profitable, sustainable harvests was beyond the career if not lifetime of any individual owner. 

And yet public ownership gets tied up in it's own political and bureaucratic nightmare.

I guess it's not just forests. Some days it's hard to keep your chin up when you see so many folks eating their own seed corn across all political, social, and economic segments of this nation.


----------



## redprospector (Feb 6, 2011)

madhatte said:


> Every site and every sale are different and require flexibility in both law and action. Washington's FPA is pretty good at allowing this flexibility, but is often superseded by Federal mandates and profit margins. I don't know local law in other states. What I do know is that foresters are retiring faster than they are being replaced, and the kind of well-considered decisions they make are being made by stockholders instead.
> 
> What we need is more foresters, more people with feet on the ground and eyes in the canopy, who can look beyond this quarter's profits and plan for a given forest's condition 20, 50, 100 years out. To look at a forest, rather than a simple crop. Trees aren't corn, and by the way, corn farmers, you can't just aggressively monocrop a piece of land indefinitely without expecting soil deterioration.


 
No, trees aren't corn.............but they are a crop. I remember when we would walk through a corn field and hand pick what was ready, leaving the rest for a later harvest. I think it should be similar with trees (in this area anyway). Every crop has a different way to be grown and harvested. 
Lumping everything together in the forest is a big mistake in my book. Here on the Lincoln they have a 24" cap. So now all those 30" to 36" trees that were killed by bugs a couple of years ago are left standing, unless they are endangering a power line or something else that would inconvenience an environmentalist. There are quite a few big trees (for this region) that are on their way out, ripe and ready, but can't be harvested. Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

Andy


----------



## forestryworks (Feb 7, 2011)

Humptulips said:


> I've always thought a little ground distubance to be a good thing. Those young trees really like them clear spots.


 
The pine here sure do love skid trails! Talk about regeneration - kablooey!


----------



## madhatte (Feb 7, 2011)

redprospector said:


> Lumping everything together in the forest is a big mistake in my book.



I couldn't agree more. That's exactly why repeated-entry commercial thins have come to be an accepted practice -- for every entry, different trees are removed for different reasons. I tend to mark trees whose removal will put light on the ground to encourage regen, or will release suppressed individuals. I'll also mark co-dominant individuals to encourage growth of larger and more vigorous trees. This is called, generically, "group selection and retention". What I'm after is a stand structure where there are as many baby trees as there are mature ones. I want to ensure that there are trees to cut later. I also want to conserve soil whenever possible, so I often mark to simplify skidding operations. I want to ensure that any disturbance is deliberate and not incidental. 

It's a known fact that Douglas-Fir is largely intolerant of shade. This has led to the myth that it will not grow back in an understory. Anybody who has walked through an old-growth stand can clearly see that this is not true, as there are always more than one cohort in a mature stand. In an unmanaged stand, canopy gaps are created by mostly disease and weather. In a managed stand, we can create those same gaps through harvest. The most important thing is to make the gaps large enough to stimulate growth in younger trees without being large enough to cause discontinuity in the forest community. 

In my mind, it's all about the soil. Preserve soil, and the forest will follow.


----------



## RandyMac (Feb 7, 2011)

"Mistakes of the past"

I know well the long term effects, that some styles of logging left.
Mostly on a historic, yet ongoing process, When I logged, the were several regs about soil management, streams, watersheds in general, not saying we didn't do long term damage.
One of my areas of research is the Bull Creek Drainage. It was logged with reckless abandon. Hell was paid, twice in 10 years, record floods and the debris flow from that drainage caused lots of damage.


----------



## hammerlogging (Feb 7, 2011)

schooners used to make it 8 miles up the Little River in Mendocino, now its about 3 ft. deep all the way. Logging sediment.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 7, 2011)

Ah, watersheds. That's a whole different story. Have a look at this article. OK, so there's a long history of sediments moving around. So what? Well, it's important to note two things. First, Washaway Beach is about 25 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia River. Second, the prevailing currents offshore in those parts are from south to north. What's the big deal? Well, sedimentation rates north of the Columbia are 30% of what they were 100 years ago. What's upstream? On the greater Columbia watershed, which drains most of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho as well as parts of BC, Alberta, Montana and Utah, there are more than 200 dams. If all logging debris ended up silting rivers, one would expect that either the dams would fail, or there would be no erosion in Washaway. Fact is, hydrology is way more complex than that. 

What was that a few posts back about there being no "one-size-fits-all" solution?


----------



## RandyMac (Feb 7, 2011)

hammerlogging said:


> schooners used to make it 8 miles up the Little River in Mendocino, now its about 3 ft. deep all the way. Logging sediment.


 
They did that on the Eel River too. Now that old river bed is buried in nearly 40 feet of gravel. The Van Duzen river of my childhood is gone, most of it dives under the gravel during the summer, all those great swimming holes are gone.


----------



## hammerlogging (Feb 7, 2011)

madhatte said:


> Ah, watersheds. That's a whole different story. Have a look at this article. OK, so there's a long history of sediments moving around. So what? Well, it's important to note two things. First, Washaway Beach is about 25 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia River. Second, the prevailing currents offshore in those parts are from south to north. What's the big deal? Well, sedimentation rates north of the Columbia are 30% of what they were 100 years ago. What's upstream? On the greater Columbia watershed, which drains most of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho as well as parts of BC, Alberta, Montana and Utah, there are more than 200 dams. If all logging debris ended up silting rivers, one would expect that either the dams would fail, or there would be no erosion in Washaway. Fact is, hydrology is way more complex than that.
> 
> What was that a few posts back about there being no "one-size-fits-all" solution?



true true, especially in a huge watershed situation. The TVA dams of Appalachia have caused beach communities up and down the Atlantic to have regular beach restoration to provide for the sediment no longer supplied. The mountain lakes ARE filling up with sediment, you can see it where the rivers enter the lakes.

But, the Little River, Randy's Eel, those are pretty easy to identify cause and effect sedimentation.


----------



## Humptulips (Feb 7, 2011)

madhatte said:


> Ah, watersheds. That's a whole different story. Have a look at this article. OK, so there's a long history of sediments moving around. So what? Well, it's important to note two things. First, Washaway Beach is about 25 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia River. Second, the prevailing currents offshore in those parts are from south to north. What's the big deal? Well, sedimentation rates north of the Columbia are 30% of what they were 100 years ago. What's upstream? On the greater Columbia watershed, which drains most of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho as well as parts of BC, Alberta, Montana and Utah, there are more than 200 dams. If all logging debris ended up silting rivers, one would expect that either the dams would fail, or there would be no erosion in Washaway. Fact is, hydrology is way more complex than that.
> 
> What was that a few posts back about there being no "one-size-fits-all" solution?



What is happening at Washaway Beach is the channel is moving north Washaway on the northside is eroding and the Long Beach Penninsula on the south side is acreting. Happening all along the Washington Coast the streams are working north.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 8, 2011)

hammerlogging said:


> But, the Little River, Randy's Eel, those are pretty easy to identify cause and effect sedimentation.



A short run from the coast ranges to the ocean is definitely a less complex hydrology than a major watershed. No doubt about it. Even medium-sized drainages, such as the Chehalis, can show clearly the effects of siltation from human activity. I chose the Columbia as an example simply because it represents the opposite end of the spectrum from the Eel as far as complexity is concerned.


----------



## RandyMac (Feb 8, 2011)

The opposite end from the Colombia would be one of the estuarine, slough like rivers on the coast of Oregon. 
Northern California's rivers got shoved to the north during the formation of the King Range, only Little River by Trinidad makes a straight run, it's really a creek. I looked for a map.
Watershed Browser
Because of the northbound orientation, they catch a great deal of water. There is an area where the Mad, Trinity, Van Duzen and part of the Eel are all lined up, separated by parallel ridges.
If you get to Southern Humboldt, camp at Albee Creek, spend some time looking at Cuneo Creek. The erosion caused by logging, is extreme and only one example of many logged areas.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 8, 2011)

That watershed browser is a neat tool! Now to see if I can dig up a more local version.


----------



## RandyMac (Feb 8, 2011)

The amount of graphical materials available is astounding. Sat maps and photos are getting better all the time. To "look" into an area of timber from your desk is coming to a monitor near you.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 8, 2011)

We're actually mapping Laminated Root Rot remotely through GIS at a landscape level. I suspect there will be a publication before long. There are still bugs to be worked out, though. 

Also:



> The opposite end from the Colombia would be one of the estuarine, slough like rivers on the coast of Oregon.



Good point. I should have thought of the North River near Tokeland. It just sort of falls off of the hillside into the ocean. A buddy of mine used to live on a houseboat about 2 miles upstream from the landing, tied to the pilings from an old log boom. The water was indeed shallow, especially in the summer.


----------



## RandyMac (Feb 8, 2011)

When you get a chance, check out Redwood Creek, a study in restoration.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 8, 2011)

Will do. It's been on my radar for awhile, I just haven't got around to diggin' yet.


----------



## RandyMac (Feb 8, 2011)

Redwood Creek drainage had massive timber, there are only a few spots that were equal. Record breaking trees were common, with almost all species. Then came talk of a Redwood park, the rest is history, leaving Redwood Creek nearly stripped of trees and choked with large woody debris, soil, even logging equipment. After the jack booted thugs from the NPS left, the real Park Service took over, they went to work restoring the stream. They are still at it.

Wait until you read about "clean" style logging.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 9, 2011)

I shudder to think about what YOU would put in quotes as "clean". I'm sure it won't line up at all with how the contracts I see are written!


----------



## RandyMac (Feb 9, 2011)

Clean, yeah, really clean, nothing but stumps and dirt. Not kidding.
Mega ground disturbance and a bunch of it was cat logged.

I worked out Big Lagoon way for LP. For two weeks. They clean logged, I couldn't take it. I watched catskinners go out of their way to skin off huckleberries. There was science behind it, the more brutally you handle Redwoods, the stronger they come back. That is, of course your hillside doesn't wash into the creek.


----------



## madhatte (Feb 9, 2011)

RandyMac said:


> That is, of course your hillside doesn't wash into the creek.



That's always the issue, isn't it? Old Archimedes wasn't kidding when he said that stuff about objects in water displacing their volume... and a sedimented waterway is a waterway which likes to flood. It's not just the plant communities on the hillside which are affected by indiscriminate disturbance, but everything downstream as well. 

This goes for natural processes as well, such as the widespread flooding on the Toutle, Cowlitz, and Newakum drainages following Mt St Helens' eruption in 1980. The ash in the streambeds as well as the pyroclastic material from the failure of the mountain itself forced water into places it would otherwise never go. The flooding did as much damage as the eruption itself, if not more! It certainly killed more people and damaged more structures.


----------



## RandyMac (Feb 9, 2011)

Yep, when the ditch is filled in, the rainwater goes across the road.

The Eel is a fine example, if the December 1964 weather conditions returned, the floodwater will have a 30-40 foot head start. The channel by Fortuna used to be deep, stayed in place mostly, year to year. It has looked like a gravel farm since the Christmas Flood. Even the Smith suffers to a degree, from sediment.


----------

