Logging YOUR watershed lands!

Wilderness Committee Educational Report Vol.11 - No. 06, Summer 1992

SIP ON THIS

  • “Obviously the best risk for the watershed in terms of water quality is not to cut it at all.”
    -Dr. Jerry Franklin, Chief ecologist, U.S. Forest Service.
  • In 1990 over 2000 loaded logging trucks worth of timber was cut on our GVWD lands. Bumper to bumper that would be a 45-kilometer long line of loaded trucks.
  • “The poor payer of water rates is not organized, so God help him against the timber interests lobby.”
    -William Angus, Former inspector and ranger, Greater Vancouver Water District
  • According to the GVWD over 320 kilometers of road have been constructed on our watershed lands. Combined with hydro, railway, pipelines and construction sites on the same lands, these developments occupy an area larger than the land area of Esquimalt.
  • “The only people that have anything to lose from watershed logging are the water users.”
    -Ministry of Environment official in conversation with Herb Hammond, author ‘Seeing the Forest Among the Trees’
  • “Treatment units would be less than ten hectares in size.”
    -GVWD chief forester’s new way of referring to clearcuts while commenting on 1992 Forest Management Program.
  • “There is no scientific evidence known to the author that demonstrated that logging improves water quality.”
    -Ray Travers, Registered Professional Forester
  • In Seattle, all of the city’s old-growth forest in the watershed has been preserved. In the GVWD to date no old-growth has been preserved.
  • During the recent logging moratorium the chief forester for the GVWD asked for and received permission to build more roads into the old growth.
  • “There are some things like Humpty Dumpty and watersheds, that cannot be put back together, Not even by experts.”
    -Chris Frissell, fishery biologist, from ‘Seeing The Forests Among the Trees’, Herb Hammond
  • After a major blowdown – that is, trees uprooted by wind – in the Portland, Oregon watershed, the U.S. Forest Service determined that 80 percent of the damage could be linked directly to logging and roads.

    • Water quality: It flows best from old growth

    High quality water means cool temperatures and low levels of sediments, dissolved nutrients, and bacteriological contamination. Old-growth forests deliver this kind of high-quality water but, in the Greater Victoria Water District, they’re at risk because of logging and the building of roads.

    Logging and related activities have been shown to have considerable impacts on water quality. Do we, as water consumers and owners of the watershed lands, want any activities in our water source that could impact on the quality of our water?

    The question facing the citizens of Greater Victoria is no longer whether logging in the watersheds affects water quality. Dr. Jerry Franklin, chief ecologist for the U.S. forest service, states it this way: “How much decrease in water quality or how much risk to water quality is…timber worth? Now that’s a call your society is going to have to make.”

    Water quality the priority

    The over-riding priority in the mandate of the Greater Victoria Water District is to ensure the “preservation and enhancement of water quality.” Pretending to accomplish that through logging or silviculture practices is a complete contradiction. Dr. Franklin sums it up this way: “When we as foresters, talk about being able to improve water quality, we are generally blowing smoke. What we really mean is we believe we can do something without significantly reducing the water quality that is there.”

    Sedimentation is a pollutant in drinking water. The U.S. Environment Protection Agency considers sediment, not toxic chemicals or municipal waste, as the number one pollutant.

    Increased sediments mean higher levels of disinfectant which, in turn, can mean higher levels ingested by the consumer and increased risks associated with the byproduct of disinfection. Protecting the source of raw water from increases in sedimentation is crucial to maintaining water quality and minimizing the need for disinfectants.

    Sources of sedimentation

    Studies have found that logging and associated road construction immensely increase sedimentation. A BC forest service publication, quoting other research, reported “…a 250-fold increase in stream turbidity and sedimentation during the first rainstorms following construction of 2.5 kilometers of road on a 100 hectare watershed.” The same publication, quotes other research that “soil erosion associated with forest road construction can annually remove about 200 cubic metres of material per hectare of exposed slope…much of this eroded material may eventually enter surface waters, causing water quality problems.” The road density referred to in the forest service publication is about the same as the road density on our watershed lands. The GVWD itself admits, “Road construction is recognized as a major cause of stream sedimentation.” According to their own management and working plans, more than 320 kilometers of road have been constructed in the district.

    To eliminate the forest and much of the topsoil on more than five per cent of watershed areas then assume it does not have any impact on the water ignores the relevant research. It’s mismanagement.

    Three who know speak out

    “Neither insects nor disease cause widespread death in the old growth forests of coastal B.C. Therefore, it is difficult to justify logging the old-growth forests to overcome this perceived threat.”

    Dr. Michael Feller, Associate professor, University of British Columbia, Department of Forest Sciences Faculty of Forestry

    “Clearcutting damages the environment irreversibly…Clearcutting causes two kinds of ecological damage, one long lasting, and the other permanent. The long lasting damage is to the soil, the permanent damage is to biological (genetic) diversity”

    Dr. E.C. Pielou, PHD D.Sc, Ecologist

    “Precious little of the Douglas fir forest remains on Canada’s coast. Remaining stands in the Greater Victoria Water District represent a significant piece of this endangered ecosystem. What reasons could justify eliminating some of the last major stands of coastal Douglas fir?”

    Dr. Richard Hebda, Adjunct assistant Professor of Biology, University of Victoria