Redwood Reader

1. Planning
John Driscoll's editorial in todays Times-Standard about planning for outdoor recreation got me thinking. Compared to agency and governmental plans, there are similarities and differences. The biggest difference is in a personal situation one or two people drive the direction of the plan and heavily weigh on the final decision. In a governmental plan, compromise is key and decisions within established guidelines prevails. In the last two years management plans for Humboldt Redwood State Park, King Range National Conservation Area, Headwaters Forest, Sinkyone State Park and the South Spit have gone through the process of scoping, drafting, request for public comments and response to comments. these are twenty year plans and generally reflect agency concepts and local input, even though these areas are either state or federal taxpayer supported. The (apparent) lack of belowground assets in this region greatly simplifies parts of the process.
Public comment process serves an invaluable purpose. It allows citizens to input on public decisions from Timber Harvest Plans to the Harbor District and County General Plan. As citizens we get to contribute our personal vision, point out mistakes and add new information while shaping our vision of a future we will live with for the next twenty years. I do not recall a public comment process for PL's Habitat Conservation Plans. While Palco is not public land they have a Habitat Conservation Plan crafted in the public interest describing standards they will meet in return for tax dollars. This is for fifty years! It must include the latest relevant science, and work made to fit the science rather than sustaining an arbitrary bottom line.
Government scientists have unknowingly figured out the relationship between precipitation and forest floor stability which clearly shows PL's historic standards-limited entry, limited canopy disruption, minimal floor degradation- were the very ones necessary for stability, sustainability and to improve air and water quality by absorbing and storing carbon not only in the vegetation but in the ground as the fungal soil glue glomalin, in turn allowing the ground to absorb and retain precipitation.
We are able to focus on timber as the primary extractable and cause of environmental degradation. Our primary pollutant is sediment. Sediment is caused when glomalin is destroyed and the filaments running throught the soil die back. CO2 is emitted, aggregated soil dissolves back to particles, water repellancy goes up, amount of precipitation needed for saturation goes down, causing runoff to increase, overwhelming local soil structure as it rushes downhill to the creek causing slides, debris torrents or gullies on the way, until it dumps a load of sediment in the creek. The continuous despoilation of logged areas is telling us the current assurances of companies and agencies is failing us because impacts here are reduced to the single cause, as opposed to areas of intense development. Research into new science indicates there are simple reasons and easy but distasteful (less profitable) remedies awaiting. This will lead us to new technologies, practices and regulations. It may also provide a new revenue stream if glomalin is accounted for in Kyoto type air cleaning standards. The U. S. will support Kyoto if and when they get the science right. This could be an important revenue stream for rural economies all over the world. Once the amount of carbon fixed in the soil is enumerated we could well trade on the global carbon markets providing income for all landowners. Pay by vegetative satelite photos and duration of cover with 10 year rotations for farms and fify years for forests. Subtract roads, houses, creeks, clear cuts, conversions to bare ground etc. Charge for carbon loss as a result of land disturbance, also scientifically demonstrable. Quanify the carbon storage/loss (25-45 lbs per tree by one source, 80 trees acre =a ton/year for example, and pay accordingly. Use the couonty's resources-HSU, CDF, DFG, Extension agent, BLM, State and Federal Parks, US Forest Service and Redwood Sciences Lab, and even Headwaters Fund to finance an initial discussion, to investigate this marvelous molecule termed by one USDA worker as black gold. That would be a boon for all kinds of land owners from schools to farms to timber companies and private landowners.