By Thembi Borras
In a workshop I recently attended on biointensive farming, I was challenged to harvest vegetables as a byproduct of growing soil. With the exception of the ocean and the atmosphere, soil is the medium in which everything we consume grows. Trees depend on the 25% or more of their biomass found in the soil, which physically functions to store water, circulate air and water and support tree roots.
Despite the importance of soil, soil loss, soil compaction and organic matter loss continue to diminish soil productivity in forests. Forest site productivity, which is the capacity of the land to grow trees, is, in part, a function of soil productivity. Forest site productivity can be measured in annual production in bf/acre/year and is an important standard used by foresters to plan, describe and compare forestlands. As forest site productivity declines so does annual production rates and the length of time between harvests may become longer.
In New Zealand, a 20 percent drop in site productivity was revealed after 1" of topsoil was removed. In my own experience I have walked areas in Central Mendocino County that obviously suffer from topsoil loss and compaction, the magnitude of which being frequently connected to the extent of the legacy skid trail network and drainage associated with it as evidenced by the light colored subsoil, stunted trees and gullies.
Soil loss reduces the supply of nutrients and water. Soil compaction retards root growth and the circulation of air and water. And, organic matter loss accelerates erosion and may decrease water retention, structure, porosity, and resistance to compaction. These conditions are not easily reversed given the amount of time it takes for easily crumbled, humus and nutrient enriched topsoil to develop. In the context of agriculture, it takes 500 years to build 1" of topsoil which is significantly longer than the time that it is taking to lose 1" of topsoil, only 28 years in some cases.
For the most part, we have inherited the soil productivity we use to prosper today. To insure that future generations are able to flourish we must reverse the depletion trend and begin to accumulate soil wealth. In the context of forestry, practices exist to minimize the loss of soil productivity, however there are no economically viable practices to restore soil, soil structure and organic matter once it has been lost. My challenge and that of future generations will not be growing trees, agricultural crops or raising cattle but will be growing the soil on which they depend.
A portion of this production was gleaned from Sustaining Site Productivity on Forestlands; A User's Guide to Good Soil Management published by the University of California and the Proceedings from the Soil, Food and People Conference held in 2000 at UC Davis.
June 25, 2006
June 11, 2006
Double Standard
By Thembi Borras
I suppose if we could do right by the air, soil and water we share, we wouldn't need laws to protect the environment. However, our actions have compromised the environment resulting in a stack of well-intentioned legislation that has created a morass of regulation. In forestry, the tangle of paperwork, permits, fees and multiple Agency review can be time consuming, costly and frustrating.
However, it doesn't have to be that way. Project proponents could be rewarded with, at a minimum, reduced or waived fees and reduced or waived paperwork if the type of forest management proposed steps beyond the minimum standards to improve forest related values. There is inequity in the present system; the hoops appear when the proponent offers timber harvest. Conversely, the hoops disappear when the project proponent offers restoration. Even though, the timber harvest project may incorporate restoration. For example, I have worked with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in three of their many programs, timber harvest review, fish habitat restoration and permitting. If the undertaking is a DFG funded fish habitat restoration project the fees and much of the paperwork associated with the permitting is absorbed by DFG. On the other hand, if the project is a timber harvest, fees and paperwork are required from the project proponent. Ironically, the specific treatments, such as sizing and designing stream crossings for 100-year storm events and improving road drainage by draining roads well and frequently onto stable surfaces, may be exactly the same.
Agencies may not be equipped to accommodate shades of gray but with the exception of the small number of projects on either side of the spectrum that are either black or white the rest are shades of gray. In fact, timber harvest can pay for restoration and if the conclusion is reached that the timber harvest project in the method and level of harvest and the proposed sediment saving treatments will yield the same or better results as a restoration project of equivalent size then it should be afforded similar reprieves if for no other reason than to provide incentive for this behavior.
I suppose if we could do right by the air, soil and water we share, we wouldn't need laws to protect the environment. However, our actions have compromised the environment resulting in a stack of well-intentioned legislation that has created a morass of regulation. In forestry, the tangle of paperwork, permits, fees and multiple Agency review can be time consuming, costly and frustrating.
However, it doesn't have to be that way. Project proponents could be rewarded with, at a minimum, reduced or waived fees and reduced or waived paperwork if the type of forest management proposed steps beyond the minimum standards to improve forest related values. There is inequity in the present system; the hoops appear when the proponent offers timber harvest. Conversely, the hoops disappear when the project proponent offers restoration. Even though, the timber harvest project may incorporate restoration. For example, I have worked with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in three of their many programs, timber harvest review, fish habitat restoration and permitting. If the undertaking is a DFG funded fish habitat restoration project the fees and much of the paperwork associated with the permitting is absorbed by DFG. On the other hand, if the project is a timber harvest, fees and paperwork are required from the project proponent. Ironically, the specific treatments, such as sizing and designing stream crossings for 100-year storm events and improving road drainage by draining roads well and frequently onto stable surfaces, may be exactly the same.
Agencies may not be equipped to accommodate shades of gray but with the exception of the small number of projects on either side of the spectrum that are either black or white the rest are shades of gray. In fact, timber harvest can pay for restoration and if the conclusion is reached that the timber harvest project in the method and level of harvest and the proposed sediment saving treatments will yield the same or better results as a restoration project of equivalent size then it should be afforded similar reprieves if for no other reason than to provide incentive for this behavior.
June 4, 2006
Madrone Renewal and Reporting Animal, Insect and Disease Forest Damage
By Thembi Borras
We can all breath a collective sigh of relief, the madrones, for the most part, are back and more glorious than ever. Madrones are susceptible to foliar leaf pathogens, the symptoms of which can range from small necrotic leaf spots to the entire leaf dying such as we have seen evolve over the course of the last year. In January of 2006 I reported that the late spring rains in 2005 had created a prime environment, high moisture during a warmer time of the year, for the growth of foliar pathogens including the native foliar pathogen causing the malady. At that time, I thought the consequence would likely be slowed growth, but the madrone would recover.
As time and the spring equinox passed and the madrones showed no signs of improvement, I became less certain that they would make a full recovery and thought it likely that at the very least there would be lasting effects such as part of the tree dying. Finally, spring brought renewal; flawless leaves began emerging three weeks ago and now govern the dead leaves that subtend them.
There are several resources available to address your concerns about tree damage caused by animals, insects and diseases. I recommend the annual reports published by the California Forest Pest Council entitled "California Forest Pest Conditions". This report summarizes the forest pest activity in California per year by providing information submitted by the aerial survey program, entomologists, pathologists, botanists and other forest health specialists. To view this report go to www.fire.ca.gov, click on Resource Management and Forestry, click on Pest Management under Category Links and click on California Forest Pest Conditions Report.
The California Forest Pest Council also sponsors the Cooperative Forest Pest Detection Survey to which they encourage federal, state, and private land managers and individuals to contribute by submitting pest injury reports and samples. For instructions on collecting and mailing samples and to fill out a Forest Pest Detection Report, go to www.fire.ca.gov, click on Resource Management and Forestry, click on Pest Management under Category Links and click on Forest Pest Detection Report Form.
We can all breath a collective sigh of relief, the madrones, for the most part, are back and more glorious than ever. Madrones are susceptible to foliar leaf pathogens, the symptoms of which can range from small necrotic leaf spots to the entire leaf dying such as we have seen evolve over the course of the last year. In January of 2006 I reported that the late spring rains in 2005 had created a prime environment, high moisture during a warmer time of the year, for the growth of foliar pathogens including the native foliar pathogen causing the malady. At that time, I thought the consequence would likely be slowed growth, but the madrone would recover.
As time and the spring equinox passed and the madrones showed no signs of improvement, I became less certain that they would make a full recovery and thought it likely that at the very least there would be lasting effects such as part of the tree dying. Finally, spring brought renewal; flawless leaves began emerging three weeks ago and now govern the dead leaves that subtend them.
There are several resources available to address your concerns about tree damage caused by animals, insects and diseases. I recommend the annual reports published by the California Forest Pest Council entitled "California Forest Pest Conditions". This report summarizes the forest pest activity in California per year by providing information submitted by the aerial survey program, entomologists, pathologists, botanists and other forest health specialists. To view this report go to www.fire.ca.gov, click on Resource Management and Forestry, click on Pest Management under Category Links and click on California Forest Pest Conditions Report.
The California Forest Pest Council also sponsors the Cooperative Forest Pest Detection Survey to which they encourage federal, state, and private land managers and individuals to contribute by submitting pest injury reports and samples. For instructions on collecting and mailing samples and to fill out a Forest Pest Detection Report, go to www.fire.ca.gov, click on Resource Management and Forestry, click on Pest Management under Category Links and click on Forest Pest Detection Report Form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
