I don't think you have to worry about getting flamed here, not when
the subject of massachusetts comes up. They sound like they're right
out of the stone age of resource management.
The Forest Practice laws of Washington State used to absolutely
prohibit getting wood into creeks and fish inhabited bodies of water.
In many watersheds they ran dozers down the thalweg to clean out
anything which would slow the passage of a flood. Big fines and lots
of police type egos involved when someone dumped a top into a creek
and got caught. The Fisheries folk began to back off in the mid 80s,
realizing that most waterways were actually short of woody debris for
the reasons you mentioned.
The times have changed to the point that I have yearly contracts to
engineer and put log jams INTO creeks and rivers. Without getting
technical, think of embedded trees and logs as the bones holding the
soft parts of the bed and bank in place during a channel's meanders
across the floodplain. No woody debris, no habitat. All you get is a
sluice with too much energy to coexist with adjacent land use.
Restoration Forestry On The Olympic Peninsula
rgmcarth at viser.net wrote:
>> In article <35D0FB0E.633B9345 at forestmeister.com>,
> Amazing. In Oregon, they have realized that a lot of the health of
> the streams are based on the shade of the vegetation, but even more from the
> large woody debris and the smaller stuff that breaks up the current and
> creates pools as well as giving the aquatic arthropods something to live in
> and eat, so the trout can eat them. Don't flame me, I'm not calling for
> stuffing the channels full of brush wood. but a clean channel is basically a
> sterile channel. Also, the more large woody debris (More than eight inches
> in diameter and several feet long--I forget) on the forest floor is ideal
> habitat for amphibians and arthropods(bugs) and the critters that live on