Good science can sometimes be poorly used.

Dr. Carlyle Franklin and students from North Carolina State University have been studying, for a number of years, ways to cut nutrient runoff and soil loss in tobacco fields. The studies have been conducted at the Oxford Tobacco Research Station in Granville County.

Some preliminary results from the research were reported in March by the N.C. Water Resources Research Institute (WRRI.) The report stated: “The researchers also compared a mature, forested filter zone of pine and hardwood to a recently clear-cut forested zone, both near tobacco fields at the Oxford Tobacco Research Station in Granville County. They found that over a one-year period, the clear-cut forest worked better to slow down fast moving water and to absorb sediment and nutrients from storm flow.”

About three short paragraphs from the report focused on the small (one-tenth of an acre) clearcut. The conclusion was: “Franklin and Hazel tentatively conclude that farmers can create an ideal forested filter zone by starting with a mature wooded forest and then developing a two-layered system. A mature canopy of widely spaced trees would let light in. Dense ground vegetation on the forest floor would be a physical barrier, slowing water down and soaking up sediment. The challenge, Franklin says, is determining how to effectively manage the ground-level growth.”

Insidiously, accounts began to appear in editorials, on the Internet and in other media that said state studies showed clearcuts were better for water quality. Leslee Thornton, who serves on the board of the Regional Water Authority of Asheville, Buncombe and Henderson counties, suggested in a guest commentary in the Asheville Citizen-Times (June 23) that the study showed, “Selective thinning and/or small clearcuts [in the 20,000-acre Asheville watershed] would not only generate a healthier forest, but much needed revenue.”

At the July 2 Macon County commissioners meeting, Don Yelton of Weaverville, speaking on behalf of Citizens For Change, who oppose Catawba River buffer rules, told commissioners that a state study [Franklin’s] had proved clearcuts were better for water quality.

Franklin, who conducted the study, however, has a different take on its conclusions.

“Any generalization beyond the scope and context of the report would be inappropriate,” Franklin said.
Franklin and fellow researchers had been receiving so many inquiries regarding the study that they published a more detailed account for the July/August WRRI News Preprint. In this account, Franklin states: “... This study clearly indicated that clear cutting of a mature forest and allowing it to be replaced with natural regrowth dramatically increased the effectiveness of a marginally effective upland forested filter zone .... The forested filter zone in this study was a non-riparian (not within 50 feet of receiving waters) upland zone ....”

In a telephone interview, Franklin also noted that a nearby forested filter zone was “perfectly adequate” for removing sediments and nutrients.

While the question of limited harvest on Asheville’s watershed may or may not be relevant, it is clear that Franklin’s study in no way addresses that issue. Likewise, since the only habitat the Catawba buffer rules apply to are riparian, Franklin’s report has no bearing on that issue.

What Franklin’s report did address was one way of increasing the effectiveness of inadequate, upland forested filter zones to remove sediments and nutrients from agricultural runoff. It is a disservice to dedicated scientists and researchers when their efforts are taken out of context and used to try to promote someone or some group’s agenda.

(Hendershot can be reached at don@smokymountainnews.com)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News