Redwood Reader

I can see I need a book or some other methodical layout so people can find the basic information amongst all my illustrating articles.

Mr. McGuiness got busted over his false statement referring to logging on Palco land "near the mouth of the Mattole", then tried to cover it by claiming that proximity of sediment source to the response reach ("drop out zone") of the stream doesn't matter. The fact is, it does matter. Sediment deposition in the response reach is probabilistic. Fine sediment generated near the response reach has a high probability of being deposited in the response reach because it can readily be transported to it during low medium flows, when it is most likely to be deposited in pools. Fine sediment generated far from the response reach requires either more time or high flows to reach the response reach. The more time required to transport the sediment, the greater the probability that a high flow event will occur in the intervening time interval. In high flow events, pools are scoured due to the velocity reversal threshold and a large portion of the suspended sediment goes to the ocean. Therefore, the probability of sediment from a distant source being deposited in the response reach is lower than that for sediment from a proximate source. This is not to say that there is no probability, or that mitigation of sediment sources in upper reaches should not occur.So the Good Roads, Clear Creeks program is only applied to roads in use? That's far less mitigation than timber companies with Habitat Conservation Plans are doing. Sediment sources away from used roads are routinely mitigated under Erosion Control Plans for THPs. When a bad sediment source is identified, it becomes a priority regardless of whether or it's on a used road. FYI, the Palco HCP was signed in 1999, not 1992.

Thanks for responding. My experience in the Mattole has been to see pools fill with sediment regardless of how hard it rains. It contradicts the books, I know. Thats why I am bringing these points up. And my main point is that there is an understanding of how soil holds together and how that affects watersheds. You will do yourselves a large favor looking into this, as it is new science. It is here. It is easy to understand. You may save some money here or find regulations easing. But you would have to convince the public and the regulators this science applies as well to forest soils as it does to cropland, where it has already saved operators millions of dollars, protected and improved the soil, and sequestered carbon.
Good Roads Clean Creeks is wholly inadequate for the types and amounts of legacy damage in some parts of the Mattole. No one will put all those skid trails to bed or lay back vertical soil bluffs to the slope of repose. It is just too expensive. There is no timber left to justify the expense, and the area is seismically unstable and subject to very heavy rain so there can be no guarantees, a tough sell for public money. But the program is correcting various drainage problems that directly contribute to sedimentation of Class 1 streams, and road improvement should alleviate some of the need for annual scraping, a major problem. The best thing about the Good Roads Clean Creeks is it plans to do the same type of work in each sub-basin in the Mattole. Landowner cooperation is necessary and never one hundred percent. Hopefully most of them are in better shape than mine.
I believe the plan is for fifteen years, and is part of the Mattole River and Range Program, of which I know very little. PL lands will never be in this condition, but you can do better, especially if you understand why lands fails decades after vegetation removal in these steep, wet areas.
I have been researching this subject for many years. I am not an expert but in my reading I found the role fungi play in watershed health by way of USDA reports on glomalin. We see glomalin connects the PNW Research Stations Forest Mycorhizzia unit and Redwood Sciences Lab lament about still not understanding what is occurring on their test parcel on Caspar Creek although neither party recognizes it. I have extrapolated on its role in forested watersheds. It is simple enough to understand. Fungal depositions in the soil cause it to aggregate, holding it together and creating pore space for air and water. The substance is easily destroyed, and can be slowly starved, which ultimately causes topsoil to lose its integrity and become mobilized in wet weather decades later.. Glomalin deposited deep in the soil by roots of large trees are not replenished by glomalin production of short rooted vegetation, and as the glomalin decays the area is prone to slide to the depth of the old root zone if it is steep, and especially when saturated. If glomalin (the floor and some photosynthesizing hosts) is protected there is less need for buffer zones and more acreage becomes available. I think this will lead to reopening of National Forests for select harvesting, since we can cut some trees without impairing waterways with mobilized soils. I believe PL has the staff and monetary motivation to thoroughly scientifically describe this process. I have asked Redwood Sciences Lab and HSU, among many others, to look into it. I have suggested a Glomalin Task Force of timber men, scientists, educators, restorers and county planners and regulators to learn it together so everyone is on the same page, and useful and meaningful results emerge would be an excellent use of Headwaters Fund money.
I am a Good Roads Clean Creek consumer, being creek side and having asked for assistance with information and the maze of permits needed for in stream work. This is the program MRC developed to address these up slope, multiple owner problems. They also moved the creek away from failing soil bluffs by redirecting it into its old bed, which had filled in, and lining it with rock. Not what I hoped for, but an improvement. For more information on these programs contact Chris Larson, ED for MRC.
It is clear you are new reader. This blog is a gathering of items to support the concept that ignorance of this simple law of nature pervades our culture, and everyone is guessing about how much we can do sustainably. Farmers like it, it saved them millions. PL issues bear directly on the point and are useful for illustrating the problems with current regulations and practices. Timber men should be wary of new concepts, and it does contra indicate clear cuts, but it may be worth it, especially if it eases buffer restrictions, since properly prepared for they become unnecessary. Developers will hate it, but it at least organizes what restricitons are guessing at. They are the result of what has gone before. I am bringing something new to the table.
The problem with TMDL's and repair programs for legacy damage is that the people responsible are dead and gone. There is no economic incentive and erosion is just not a priority for most folks. It takes years to get permissions and permits to do a little roadwork, and it is very difficult to convince an uphill owner his activities are impacting people down hill. In the heavy rains we get here, runoff gathers a head of steam that increases with distance to an outlet, usually causing a gully or slide on the way.
I believe 1992 was the year a framework was established that set the table for the Norwest Forest Plan and the subsequent HCP. Regardless, this is the science that is insufficient, as we can observe. Glomalin does not contradict any current science it builds on it.