Redwood Reader

I have a report of a new crack in the ground on our land. Related by a relative new person, it was described as running downhill between two small tributaries. This in an area where our major problem have been scarping, which occurs parallel to the creek. This new crack is described as perpendicular to the creek, so I suspect we are talking about a new “mystery” gulley probably the result of drainage changes higher up the hill. This is to be expected to some extent after this summers road work and probably new building above us as well.
The side creek crossings have held up very well. The two major creek crossings are also in good shape and a testimony to careful rock armoring, all done by hand. A new batch of boulders had to be shoved out of the way once the water receded, some years we repeat that activity all wet season. All in all the new work is handling a medium heavy winter in fine style.
Public notices in the paper report Bob and Val Stansbury have completed an agreement with Save-the Redwoods and BLM. The Stansburys have been operating on the land since the thirties. Bob has an encyclopedic knowledge of local landscapes. They had some concerns about the Redwoods to the Sea Wildlife Corridor, which was always accessible to them before it became public property. Negotiations have been ongoing for quite a while. Bob had concerns over his access and water rights for his cattle. SRL was trying to make sense of the scattered parcels acquired from Eel River Sawmills. Sections of the Community Management Plan restrict activities they have always enjoyed, and we are grateful they see the public good in the project. According to the notice, thirty acres are going to BLM, and there will be no net loss of agricultural grazing lands. I hired Bob several years ago for Cat work, and he put me on to Scott Downey of DFG. Scott had habitat typed Middle Creek. I asked him to visit and for recommendations. He suggested a sediment inventory. I carried this back to Freeman House, Executive Director of Mattole Restoration Council, and Good Roads Clean Creeks developed from there. Salute to all!
On the same subject we see a completely different picture across the state line where BLM has a mandate for supporting local community interests. I have mentioned before the extent of the Eugene region plan from 1998 and the vast amount of topics they must be responsible for as well as responsive to the needs of the community. There isn’t much call for protections under those conditions. Nevertheless, the report on damage to the landscape after salvage logging the Biscuit Fire calls for better protections on the ground, not of cash flow. Particularly galling was the accidental cutting of live old growth inside a biological preserve. We know that the ground is fragile in the first place, and burned ground is far more fragile since its water retention properties are being destroyed.
Reed of the Mattole Salmon Group returned the family water-monitoring device. I was getting edgy about it and a little pressure from my brother to be sure it was being cared for. Libby of MRC was with him. They caught me between loads moving a trailer and I didn’t get to visit as I would have liked but I did ask about operations this year. The rescue rearing had gone well and was completed in October. This involves raising fish from waters that will go dry, mostly Bear Creek as I recall. The other big issue was to test declining flows in the Upper Mattole. Reed was the person on it, but there was more water in the streams this year. IN fact, water where none had been for fifteen years prompted a temporary stoppage and an incompletion (I think) on the lower crossing. A boulder dam forcing water into the old channel was agreed upon but I think they didn’t quite finish. Coulda been l money or other reasoning but all in all I am happy. And of course, one good project points up the need for others, as well as presenting opportunities.
Driving through HRSP last week I noticed how bad the sides of Bull Creek had been washed, with bare ground and piles of alder trees on the right side between the redwoods and the rangers’ house. I also noticed a little further upstream, in the area of the plunge pool project; this did not seem to be the case at all. Perhaps it is the extent of the project, or perhaps Cuneo Creek caused it to jump the banks. This little experiment may just prove a major insight into benefits of restoration activity. I personally feel that it does little good to restrict corrective activities or to preserve damaged lands and streams, and that more aggressive activity early leads to a more stable and profitable landscape sooner, as well as less need for work in the future. This is why I say restoration is not sustainable. We have learned the lessons of the last century and I suspect we will not see anything like the flood of 1964 simply because it is not possible to lay so many acres bare anymore. We will probably never see those conditions again. Plenty of other things can still go wrong but overbuilding forest roads will never occur on the same scale again. On the other hand, massive building in the floodplains behind failing levees in the Delta are almost certain to cause problems at some point, as is roofing and paving thousands of acres in areas prone to the occasional severe rain event. It wou8ld be good to figure out capture techniques for storage, underground or in tanks or bags. The demand for water is huge, we have more than enough, how can we make it work?