By Thembi Borras
Tanoak is a beautiful wood, we used it in our home for trim, baseboard and cabinet stock. Tanoak is hard and either clear boards or boards complex in character can be made from it. However, tanoak is a labor of love to process, minimizing the defect during drying being the trickiest part. Several attempts have been made to develop the infrastructure for processing tanoak into a viable product, foremost among them was Mendocino Redwood Company's attempt to make tanoak into tongue and groove flooring. Regardless of the many failed attempts to create a viable market for tanoak, landowners and forest managers continue to seek an economical means to balance the large amount of tanoak in certain landscapes with the desired conifer component.
Some forest managers use herbicides to gain this balance. Firewood operations are limited by the number of reputable firewood cutters, logistics, and that many small timers can't afford liability insurance. The best time to remove tanoak is when logging conifers, because the roads are open, the equipment is on site and the CDF plan under which you are operating is active. To do this however, you need some place to sell it and at this time, there is no viable market. Occasionally the chip market will pay enough per ton to justify hauling it to the closest pulp mill in Humboldt County, but this is usually at a net loss.
Recently, I was asked by a reader in Irmulco with a tanoak rich property, "How about conducting a poll to see how many folks would support the county pursuing a hardwood for biofuel project?".
One type of biofuel project could be a cogeneration plant that would burn wood to generate electricity. Another might be to convert biomass to biofuel. One advantage this market has over the furniture or flooring markets is the size and quality of the tree matters less, so there is less incentive to high grade the biggest and best trees from a managed forest. My guess is as much tanoak as conifer could be harvested in the County each year. If this were an adequate resource base, there are at least two inactive industrial sites previously used to process forest products that could serve as potential locations. Given that this topic has been penetrated to various depths over the last several decades, old-timers may already have answers to obvious questions like can it be done cleanly, is it cost-effective and is there public support? Given the high price of oil and interest in self-sufficiency, this may be a good time to once again consider this option for turning tanoak into energy.
February 19, 2006
February 12, 2006
Flood Recurrence Frequency of 12-30-05 Storm
By Thembi Borras
On December 30th of 2005 rivers and streams rose and spilled over their banks and already saturated soil moved. Ken Montgomery, proprietor of the Anderson Valley Nursery, recorded 7.58" of rain fell between 9am on the 30th and 9am on the 31st and 27.46" fell during the month of December. According to Ken, December 2005 was the wettest December in at least 70 years, and the second wettest month in at least 70 years. Ken reports that even more stunning than the record setting monthly total is that the 27.46" fell in the last two weeks, in fact it was one of the driest Decembers until December 17th.
On the 31st, it was dry enough to get out and see what the high water left behind or had taken away. Silt and water were left behind in homes and structures that were flooded by the Russian and Navarro Rivers. Soil, trees, logs and lumber were taken by the River and deposited downstream. The North Fork Navarro River tried to take a nearby cabin; it lifted it off its post and pier foundation and carried it downstream as far as the electrical ground wire would allow.
A woman I met in the aftermath of her Oak Manor home having been flooded said the home had not flooded in the 30 years that she lived in the subdivision. Therefore, based on anecdotal evidence the flood flow had not been as high as on 12-30-05 in 30 years at the Oak Manor site.
Determining how frequently the flood flow associated with the 12-30-05 storm might be expected to happen is not simple. It is a function of the historical data available in a specific geographic area. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage on the mainstem Navarro, located 5.3 miles upstream from the mouth, has been in operation for the last 54 years providing discharge data. On the morning of 12-31-05, this gage recorded the peak discharge of 55,700 cubic feet per second, using this data in the Gumbel method the flood recurrence frequency was estimated to be 25 years. The Gumbel method is considered a quick and dirty way to estimate the flood recurrence frequency using peak annual discharges. The prediction becomes better the more years data is collected. The flood recurrence frequency of the 12-30-05 flood in watersheds in the Fort Bragg area was thought to be lower (e.g. 12 years) and in watersheds in Sonoma County thought to be much higher (e.g. 50 years).
A portion of this production was gleaned from communication with Dennis Slota, Hydrologist at the Mendocino County Water Agency.
On December 30th of 2005 rivers and streams rose and spilled over their banks and already saturated soil moved. Ken Montgomery, proprietor of the Anderson Valley Nursery, recorded 7.58" of rain fell between 9am on the 30th and 9am on the 31st and 27.46" fell during the month of December. According to Ken, December 2005 was the wettest December in at least 70 years, and the second wettest month in at least 70 years. Ken reports that even more stunning than the record setting monthly total is that the 27.46" fell in the last two weeks, in fact it was one of the driest Decembers until December 17th.
On the 31st, it was dry enough to get out and see what the high water left behind or had taken away. Silt and water were left behind in homes and structures that were flooded by the Russian and Navarro Rivers. Soil, trees, logs and lumber were taken by the River and deposited downstream. The North Fork Navarro River tried to take a nearby cabin; it lifted it off its post and pier foundation and carried it downstream as far as the electrical ground wire would allow.
A woman I met in the aftermath of her Oak Manor home having been flooded said the home had not flooded in the 30 years that she lived in the subdivision. Therefore, based on anecdotal evidence the flood flow had not been as high as on 12-30-05 in 30 years at the Oak Manor site.
Determining how frequently the flood flow associated with the 12-30-05 storm might be expected to happen is not simple. It is a function of the historical data available in a specific geographic area. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage on the mainstem Navarro, located 5.3 miles upstream from the mouth, has been in operation for the last 54 years providing discharge data. On the morning of 12-31-05, this gage recorded the peak discharge of 55,700 cubic feet per second, using this data in the Gumbel method the flood recurrence frequency was estimated to be 25 years. The Gumbel method is considered a quick and dirty way to estimate the flood recurrence frequency using peak annual discharges. The prediction becomes better the more years data is collected. The flood recurrence frequency of the 12-30-05 flood in watersheds in the Fort Bragg area was thought to be lower (e.g. 12 years) and in watersheds in Sonoma County thought to be much higher (e.g. 50 years).
A portion of this production was gleaned from communication with Dennis Slota, Hydrologist at the Mendocino County Water Agency.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
