🚀 go-pugleaf

Larry Caldwell wrote:
> 
> In article <33DCB96A.64E9@mail.olympus.net>,
> Michael Hagen <mhagen@mail.olympus.net> wrote:
> 
> > Recent  work has actually shown that buffers which extend all the way up
> > the ridge to the next watershed are the most effective at preventing
> > human caused impacts to streams.
> 
> ROTFL!  You can't get much more effective, or less efficient, than that!
> 
> > Of course there are varying opinions on this [;)  hardhat on....
> 
> Joking aside, this sort of protection is commonly applied around drinking
> water reservoirs.  There was a huge amount of controversy a few years
> ago about allowing logging in Portland's Bull Run watershed. Sure enough,
> they got mud in their water even though the logging was a long ways from
> the stream, and the loggers used silt curtains and ground cover.
> 
> A silt curtain is a porous fabric fence about two feet high.  The lower
> edge is buried in the soil.  It interrupts silt erosion on slopes and
> gives ground cover time to become established.  Another technique that
> is cheap and easy to install is one or two layers of baled straw.  If the
> straw is baled with sisal twine instead of plastic or wire, this has the
> advantage of being 100% biodegradable, so you don't have to bother removing
> it.  Baled straw has very few viable seeds, so you don't get much in the
> way of weed propagation.  It won't do much to stop the occasional runaway
> tree, though.  :)
> 
> Erosion control measures have become common on construction sites.  I think
> we'll see more of them on logging sites as time goes on.
> 
> -- Larry

(Snort)
	I wasn't totally tongue in cheek, although the prospect of having to
set up haybales at the bottom of harvest areas is very unappealing...
	There's a new study by Jerry Franklin, et al, which I have not been
able to get my hands on, which is rumored to have done cost benefit
analysis on large watersheds and the range of logging from full clearcut
to small no-entry buffers to large buffers with selective cutting. The
partial cut option can be thought of as a limited harvest zone (ie, a
buffer) which happens to extend to the far reaches of the catchment. 
Now I really wish I had a copy of this in hand because (the grapevine
said) the finding was that the last option was more cost effective, and
that finding would certainly make my work easier. 
	Now we all know about hidden economic costs (pollution, erosion, lost
productivity, loss of diversity, the threat of listing and its impacts,
etc), not to mention the positive value of "other resources" in the
watershed such as fisheries, water supply protection and so on.
Obviously, this is a bigger undertaking than a conventional CB analysis
deals with. 
	Does anyone have a copy or know the source?