Skip to main content

June 10 – There was an article in the paper this morning about the Army Corps of Engineers removing trees from levees that hold back river water during times of flooding. Their thinking is that the trees destabilize the levees. Apparently they’re encountering a certain degree of opposition in a number of communities. People love trees – you can see that in the Midwest as you drive past one overplanted yard after another. Trees give us such pleasure, and worrying about 100-year floods probably seems like overkill to most people. One individual quoted in the article said that just the opposite was true; that, in fact, tree roots stabilize levees. So which is it?

The little bit of knowledge I’ve managed to glean about trees and their roots being destabilized was acquired in North Carolina during Hurricane Fran. It rained for two weeks almost non-stop before Fran hit. All of that water, penetrating the ground over an extended period, loosened the hold tree roots had on the soil, and when the 70 mile-per-hour winds that swept central North Carolina shook those trees, they came down by the score. Any soil held in place by those roots would easily have been cleared away by the torrential rain. But hold on – don’t jump to conclusions. There are variables we have to consider.

The soil in North Carolina’s piedmont zone is heavy red clay. Tree roots have difficulty penetrating it, so many of the trees that grow there are unable to put down deep roots. Compounding this inherent instability is the fact that pine trees, of which there are millions in the Carolina’s, are shallow rooters by nature. (Then again, their wood is soft, so they can bend rather than break.) What should quickly become apparent is that, in this part of the country, the trees cannot be counted upon to stabilize the soil when the roots are stressed during abnormal conditions. The vast majority of the time, the trees are an absolute blessing: it gets very hot in that part of the world, and trees give shade. But what about during extreme weather events, which have become far more common in our global-warming world?

On the other hand, there are undoubtedly many places in this country where trees can put down deep roots. A tree’s ability to hold the soil in place will vary by species, of course. Some trees, in addition to the main branches of the root system, send out smaller and smaller roots from those branches, reaching out in all directions, forming an almost fibrous mat. Such trees are likelier to withstand violent weather events, like flooding, and remain standing. Others will be neither shallow rooted nor deep rooted, but fall somewhere in between.

It seems to me it would behoove the Corps to know something about the trees that grow in a given area before they cut them all down (the approach they are currently taking). Plainly shallow-rooted trees are a liability during a flood; they could well be the problem the Corps says they are. Just as plain, it seems to me, is the fact that deeply-rooted trees could be a tremendous asset during a flood, holding in place precious soil that would need to be replaced, were it washed away. Bottom line? One size does NOT fit all when assessing the value of trees and their roots’ ability to stabilize soil. The Corps needs to be willing to put in the time and effort necessary to make these vital evaluations. It is counterproductive to clear away deeply-rooted trees and then lament their loss. Evaluate first, then cut. It is not only the most environmentally-beneficial use of tax-payer dollars, it is the most cost-effective.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Time to be Scared

November 26, 2018 You've heard by now that the US Global Change Research Program released its Fourth National Climate Assessment last Friday. Scientists are, at last, confident enough to say that climate change is the new reality. How very much I wish they had published this bold assertion many years ago, rather than always being hesitant (" . . . we're 73% sure this could happen . . ."). While I know the politics involved cannot be allowed to sway them, and that scientists are unaccustomed to speaking for the masses, their inability to convince the scientifically uneducated of the value in climate change hypotheses has hurt us all. In any event, they have now spoken up loudly and clearly. According to NOAA, one of the 13 government agencies responsible for the Assessment, we can expect the following, should mitigating actions not be taken immediately: - Human health and safety, quality of life, and economic growth will all suffer.        The 2014 Assessment c...

A Rock and a Hard Place

October 8, 2012 - Such a pickle: we have the coal, but no longer want to burn it.  China wants the coal, but shouldn't burn it because of the resulting air pollution.  Coal mining companies in the U.S. are ready and waiting to ship their coal to China.  Citizens of the U.S. living on its west coast are adamant they want nothing to do with exporting coal.  That includes Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  Kitzhaber's April 25 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar expresses his profound skepticism about shipping coal by way of Oregon's ports.  He has requested that a programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) first be conducted for all five of the export projects currently being considered, as well as a comprehensive policy review.  Here is part of a press release announcing his letter: "I have concerns about proceeding in this direction [exporting coal to China via Oregon ports] in the absence of a full national discussion about the ramif...