We Must Protect Mature Oak Trees
A Discussion on the Acorns to Oaks Program and Carbon Sequestration in Napa County
By Katie Stilwell
To preface, here are some definitions for you:
Deforestation is the cutting down of trees.
Proforestation is the protection and enhancement of existing trees
Afforestation is the planting of trees in places where there weren’t trees originally.
Reforestation is planting trees where there were trees there before.
Proforestation is ideal, while reforestation is great, and afforestation is good. Deforestation is bad. One group in Napa who practices lots of reforestation is the Resource Conservation District. In the Acorns to Oaks Program, implemented in NVUSD schools by the Napa County RCD, they plant acorns with the intent to re-oak Napa. I’ve been helping to promote and evaluate the success of the program, which has planted over 5,500 acorns during the last 8 years. 17% have survived.
The main factor in the survival rate is the seedlings being eaten by predators. Cages have been put around the young seedlings so that voles and other critters can’t reach the green vegetation. Lack of water is also an issue, but the A2O program has thought of a solution that requires very little effort. They put a bucket of mulch around the seedlings to trap moisture and also deter weeds and other unwanted plants from choking out the seedlings. The A2O program uses a much-improved system. They work hard to primarily instill a conservation ethic in youth, and secondarily practice afforestation and reforestation in the re-oaking of Napa Valley. It's a difficult endeavor trying to soften the blow caused by deforestation. Ultimately, it’s easier to just not cut trees down. The youth of NVUSD are losing the race against rampant deforestation of Napa. In this climate emergency, we can’t be cutting down trees and practicing long-term strategies to mitigate the loss. There’s no time.
Vineyards can’t compete with oak woodlands when it comes to sequestering carbon due to their short lifespan. In the short term, vineyards are actually good at sequestering carbon! However, oaks can live for hundreds of years, and exponentially improve at sequestration as they age. Vineyards are ripped out every 25-30 years (and then chipped or burned - both re-releasing carbon). They also require a lot of water and fertilizer, while oaks on the other hand, can just be planted and left. After oaks die, they decompose slowly if they’re left intact, releasing carbon safely into the soil. In sum, forests are better short term and long term strategies for climate stabilization. But due to the extremely narrow window of opportunity we have to stabilize the climate, we cannot partake in land cover change and expect it to mitigate damage later. We should just protect what sequestration technology we have (trees) and enhance their sequestration potential..
So what’s the point of telling Napa’s Sierra Clubbers about all this?
To put the RCD’s re-oaking effort into context with adverse efforts to deforest, The Walt Ranch vineyard project will cut more than 14,000 mature trees in order to make room for more vineyards. They have to make up for cutting down the trees, so they have proposed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by protecting 248 acres of woodlands. Which is a nice idea. But the area where they wanted to preserve was not under threat of development. Which undermines the principle of effective preservation in that it protects what’s already protected. As an environmental scientist in training, I consider this to be double-dipping, lazy environmentalism, and cheating. The Board of Supervisors recently set aside this mitigation finding because the appellate courts blew the whistle on it. So that was a halfway win for environmentalists.
One solution could be the Napa County Water Quality and Tree Protection Ordinance. It has a similar problem to the Walt Ranch litigation, because it allows preservation to take place on slopes greater than 30% where trees are, again, not under threat of development (it’s not possible to remove forests for development on such steep slopes). This makes the Ordinance weak and unable to provide adequate mitigation. But the good news is that it can be fixed! It can be revised to protect trees. The Board of Supervisors has the power to pass a temporary moratorium on deforestation until this WQTPO is revised to protect the trees as best as possible.
How can I take action to support this temporary moratorium on deforestation?
Make public comments at city council meetings! Explain that you want to stop deforestation and preserve the forests we have in Napa. Encourage leaders to revise the Water Quality and Tree Protection Ordinance so that it emphasizes proforestation of woodlands that are in danger of being cut down. Literally call your decision-makers to action! Get to know them. Their phone numbers are on this website. Thank you.
About Katie:
Katie Stilwell is interning for the Napa Sierra Club this summer. She’s a college student at the University of Redlands double-majoring in Environmental Science and Public Policy. Katie grew up in Napa and graduated from Vintage High School, where she began her love for science. She enjoys time outdoors and with friends (with appropriate social distancing). She supports science-based policy and strives to help create that in any opportunity that arises.
Photo Credits (from first to last):
Peter Blanchard
U.S. Navy photo by Harry Friedman Released
Anthony Nicalo
Chris Sauer
Katie Stilwell