Soil as a Pillar for a New Appalachian Economy - Renew Appalachia

19 Pages·2010·1.53 MB·English

by  Samir Doshi

Draft
 submitted
 to
 Central
 Appalachian
 Prosperity
 Project

Soil
 as
 a
 Pillar
 for
 a
 New
 Appalachian
 Economy

By
 Samir
 K
 Doshi1,
 2,
 *
 and
 John
 H
 Todd1,
 2

1Gund
 Institute
 for
 Ecological
 Economics;
 2Rubenstein
 School
 of
 Environment
 and
 Natural
 Resources,

University
 of
 Vermont

*
 Email
 correspondence
 to
 [email protected]

While
 the
 farmer
 holds
 the
 title
 to
 the
 land,
 actually
 it
 belongs
 to
 all
 the
 people

because
 civilization
 itself
 rests
 upon
 the
 soil.

  -­
 Thomas
 Jefferson,

Appalachian
 Farmer
 and
 Former
 US
 President

Introduction

Similar
 to
 an
 ecological
 system,
 civilization
 has
 always
 depended
 on
 a

foundation
 for
 survival
 -­‐
 soil
 -­‐
 to
 build
 our
 shelters
 on,
 filter
 our
 water
 and
 wastes,

nurture
 our
 food
 systems,
 and
 regulate
 our
 climate.

 As
 the
 pioneering
 soil
 scientist

Hans
 Jenny
 taught,
 soil
 should
 not
 be
 thought
 of
 as
 a
 material,
 but
 a
 living
 system

(Jenny,
 1941).

 We
 will
 explore
 the
 evolution
 of
 soil
 in
 Appalachia,
 its
 significance
 to

the
 culture,
 and
 how
 regenerating
 degraded
 soils
 can
 provide
 the
 basis
 for

numerous
 enterprises.

Across
 a
 distance
 of
 1100
 miles
 from
 Alabama
 to
 southern
 Quebec,
 the

Appalachian
 Mountains
 form
 the
 Eastern
 spine
 of
 our
 continent.

 The
 mountains
 are

old,
 elder
 to
 and
 more
 eroded
 than
 the
 Rockies,
 Himalayas
 and
 most
 other
 mountain

ranges
 on
 the
 planet.

 The
 borders
 of
 Central
 Appalachia
 are
 hard
 to
 define,
 as
 it

interpreted
 by
 both
 culture
 and
 environment.

 Ecologically,
 the
 Wisconsonian
 ice

sheet
 retreated
 from
 Southern
 Pennsylvania
 nearly
 14,000
 years
 ago,
 where
 the

northern
 border
 of
 Central
 Appalachia
 becomes
 evident
 from
 its
 unique
 biological

diversity
 and
 ecosystem
 assemblages.

 It
 ventures
 south
 until
 we
 start
 to
 see
 greater

levels
 of
 diversity
 in
 the
 Smoky
 Mountains
 of
 Tennessee
 and
 North
 Carolina

(Constantz,
 1995).

 Culturally
 and
 even
 politically,
 Central
 Appalachia
 is
 often

recognized
 as
 the
 specific
 region
 of
 Southwestern
 Virginia,
 Southern
 West
 Virginia,

Eastern
 Kentucky,
 Eastern
 Tennessee
 and
 Western
 North
 Carolina
 (Sarnoff,
 2003).

The
 region
 has
 a
 long
 and
 storied
 connection
 to
 the
 land.

 Before
 European

explorers
 arrived,
 the
 Shawnee
 and
 Cherokee
 indigenous
 tribes
 thrived
 in
 the
 area

supported
 by
 agricultural
 staples
 such
 as
 corn
 and
 squash.

 After
 the
 French
 and

Indian
 War
 in
 the
 mid
 18th
 century,
 subsistence
 agriculture
 played
 an
 integral
 role

of
 the
 local
 economy
 until
 the
 early
 20th
 century,
 with
 the
 presence
 of
 tobacco
 as
 an

important
 cash
 crop.

 In
 the
 late
 1800s,
 the
 steam
 powered
 engine
 opened
 access
 to

much
 of
 Appalachia’s
 pristine
 forests.

 Logging
 increased
 until
 the
 1950s,
 when
 the
industry
 shifted
 its
 production
 towards
 the
 Pacific
 Northwest
 and
 a
 greater
 amount

of
 Appalachian
 land
 was
 set
 aside
 as
 national
 parks.

 Although
 coal
 has
 been
 mined

in
 Appalachia
 since
 the
 early
 1700s,
 large-­‐scale
 production
 began
 in
 the
 late
 19th

century,
 again
 as
 a
 result
 of
 mechanization
 and
 the
 expansion
 of
 the
 railroads.

Mining
 continued
 to
 rise
 at
 a
 booming
 rate
 through
 World
 War
 I
 and
 then
 suffered
 a

large
 bust
 during
 the
 Great
 Depression.

 Due
 to
 the
 booming
 period
 of
 the
 early
 20th

century,
 population
 trends
 in
 Appalachia
 rose
 dramatically.

 World
 War
 II
 brought

production
 increases
 in
 both
 coal
 and
 timber,
 but
 this
 spike
 was
 only
 temporary
 and

the
 remaining
 communities
 that
 were
 tied
 to
 the
 extractive
 industries
 fell
 into

regional
 poverty,
 which
 drew
 the
 attention
 of
 the
 government
 and
 the
 development

of
 the
 Appalachian
 Regional
 Commission
 (Williams,
 2001).

The
 past
 few
 decades
 have
 seen
 a
 strong
 reduction
 in
 poverty
 and
 renewal
 in

timber
 and
 coal
 production;
 however,
 this
 period
 continues
 to
 follow
 the
 boom
 and

bust
 cycles
 previously
 experienced
 in
 Central
 Appalachia
 and
 in
 other
 single

resource
 dependent
 economies.
 In
 his
 book,
 Lost
 Landscapes
 and
 Failing
 Economies,

resource
 economist
 Thomas
 M.
 Power
 states
 that
 economic
 diversification
 is
 the

only
 solution
 to
 the
 instability
 and
 tendency
 toward
 decline
 associated
 with
 rural,

industrial
 populations
 (Power,
 1996).

Similarities
 to
 other
 regions

Central
 Appalachian
 communities
 resemble
 other
 single
 resource
 dependent

and
 extractive
 communities.

 Forestry
 in
 Oregon,
 industrial
 agriculture
 in
 Iowa,

metal
 mining
 in
 Nevada
 –
 all
 the
 associated
 communities
 have
 seen
 trends
 of

declining
 income
 and
 health
 along
 with
 increasing
 environmental
 degradation.

 It’s
 a

story
 that
 we
 can
 see
 throughout
 natural
 resource
 economies,
 and
 the
 results
 are

always
 the
 same:
 intensified
 specialization
 in
 a
 few
 sectors,
 larger
 percentages
 of

private
 vs.
 public
 resource
 ownership
 with
 fewer
 owners,
 increased
 job
 loss
 with

more
 publicity
 on
 ‘indirectly’
 associated
 jobs,
 and
 a
 decrease
 in
 social
 well-­‐being

and
 health
 (Power,
 1996).

Significance
 of
 Soil

In
 The
 Unsettling
 of
 America,
 Wendell
 Berry
 writes,
 “The
 soil
 is
 the
 great

connector
 of
 our
 lives,
 the
 source
 and
 destination
 of
 all”
 (Berry,
 1984).

 From
 the

nutrients
 that
 feed
 us
 to
 the
 structures
 that
 stabilize
 our
 shelters
 and
 finally
 the

bacteria
 that
 decompose
 our
 bodies,
 the
 soil
 is
 where
 we
 come
 from
 and
 where
 we

return.

The
 soils
 of
 Appalachia
 can
 be
 described
 as
 being
 in
 a
 moderate
 climate
 and

having
 well-­‐balanced
 moisture
 content.

 Appalachian
 soils
 are
 classified
 as

inceptisols,
 ultisols
 and
 alfisols
 -­‐
 developed
 from
 heavily
 weathered
 shale,

sandstone,
 and
 siltstone,
 as
 well
 as
 materials
 transported
 down-­‐slope
 by
 gravity
 and

water.

 The
 high
 organic
 matter
 content
 and
 fertility,
 as
 well
 as
 higher
 acidic
 content
is
 a
 product
 of
 the
 vegetation
 cover
 of
 the
 Eastern
 hardwood
 oak,
 hickory
 and

formerly
 chestnut
 forest
 (Costantz,
 1995;
 Haering,
 2004).

One
 of
 the
 most
 alarming
 issues
 facing
 us
 today
 is
 that
 soil
 is
 degrading

globally
 at
 a
 rate
 of
 5
 tons
 per
 acre
 per
 year,
 compared
 with
 natural
 soil
 formation

rate
 of
 4.5
 tons
 per
 acre
 per
 year.

 That
 is
 an
 annual
 loss
 approximately
 the
 size
 of

Ukraine,
 along
 with
 all
 the
 associated
 ecosystem
 services.

 Nearly
 40%
 of
 the

world’s
 agricultural
 lands
 are
 severely
 degraded.

 In
 the
 U.S.,
 two-­‐thirds
 of
 degraded

soils
 are
 an
 effect
 of
 industrial
 agriculture.

 Figure
 1
 shows
 soil
 degradation
 levels

across
 the
 globe.

 Agriculture
 causes
 30%
 of
 soil
 degradation,
 deforestation

contributes
 4%,
 and
 the
 remainder
 is
 a
 mix
 of
 different
 applications.

 Although
 there

are
 differing
 severities
 of
 degradation,
 the
 loss
 of
 land
 productivity
 as
 a
 product
 of

large-­‐scale
 industrialized
 activities
 has
 impacted
 nearly
 75%
 of
 the
 U.S
 (Lal
 et
 al.,

2004).

Figure
 1:
 Global
 levels
 of
 degraded
 soils
 (UNEP,
 1997).

This
 is
 not
 erosion.

 Technically,
 erosion
 is
 a
 natural
 occurrence
 caused
 by

wind,
 water
 and
 gravity,
 just
 as
 soil
 formation
 is
 a
 process
 that
 occurs
 by
 the

weathering
 of
 bedrock
 and
 decomposition
 of
 organic
 matter
 as
 a
 function
 of
 climate,

time
 and
 topography.

 Human
 induced
 erosion
 is
 defined
 as
 degradation,
 and
 is

usually
 more
 severe
 than
 natural
 occurrences
 (Blaikie
 and
 Brookfield,
 1987).

 This

involves
 impacts
 to
 the
 physical,
 chemical
 and
 biological
 components
 of
 the
 soil.
When
 engineers
 and
 others
 refer
 to
 needing
 ‘erosion
 control’
 as
 a
 consequence
 of

industrial
 activity,
 it
 is
 really
 ‘degradation
 control.’

 The
 consequences
 of
 soil

degradation
 are
 obvious
 –
 food,
 climate,
 shelter,
 and
 water
 security
 will
 all
 be
 at
 risk

(Daily,
 1995).

 In
 the
 current
 climate
 of
 food
 insecurity,
 water
 scarcity
 and
 a
 growing

population,
 the
 health
 of
 our
 soil
 should
 be
 a
 priority,
 and
 as
 we
 will
 see
 in
 the
 next

section,
 can
 even
 be
 a
 foundation
 for
 economic
 and
 community
 development.

Soil
 Impacts

Agriculture

In
 Central
 Appalachia,
 forestry
 and
 mining
 make
 up
 a
 larger
 percentage
 of

soil
 degradation
 than
 the
 national
 averages,
 but
 agriculture
 and
 overgrazing
 still

have
 a
 significant
 impact.

 Agricultural
 systems
 often
 include
 annual
 tillage,

monoculture
 production,
 and
 fertilizer
 applications
 that
 subside
 and
 compact
 soils,

pollute
 waterways
 from
 runoff,
 decrease
 soil
 organic
 matter
 and
 aggregates,
 and

severely
 impact
 soil
 microorganism
 habitats.
 Healthy
 topsoil
 should
 be

approximately
 50%
 solid
 materials
 and
 50%
 pore
 space
 (Brady
 and
 Weill,
 2001).

The
 plow
 has
 been
 seen
 as
 a
 necessity
 to
 produce
 enough
 yields
 for
 a
 growing

population,
 but
 it
 has
 reduced
 soil
 structure
 and
 the
 susceptibility
 to
 soil
 loss
 and

degradation.

 This
 was
 a
 large
 factor
 in
 the
 desertification
 of
 the
 ‘Dust
 Bowl’
 era
 (Lal,

2007a).

 We
 cannot
 discuss
 the
 issue
 of
 soil
 degradation
 in
 agriculture
 without

acknowledging
 the
 work
 of
 Wes
 Jackson
 and
 The
 Land
 Institute.

 Jackson
 presents

his
 philosophy
 of
 our
 society’s
 connection
 to
 the
 land
 in
 his
 seminal
 work,
 New

Roots
 for
 Agriculture.

 He
 prefaces,
 “Most
 analyses
 of
 problems
 in
 agriculture
 do
 not

deal
 with
 the
 problem
 of
 agriculture,”
 meaning
 that
 we
 normally
 discuss
 the
 impacts

of
 agricultural
 methods,
 not
 the
 current
 system
 of
 agriculture
 itself.

 Jackson
 sees

the
 practices
 of
 tillage
 and
 annual
 crop
 production
 as
 a
 diversion
 from
 natural

ecosystem
 processes
 and
 consequently
 a
 threat
 to
 our
 ecosphere
 (Jackson,
 1980).

Forestry

Forestry
 operations
 have
 greatly
 improved
 over
 the
 past
 decades
 and
 are
 a

greater
 concern
 in
 developing
 countries;
 however,
 the
 impact
 in
 the
 U.S.
 is
 not

insignificant.

 Forestry
 effects
 include
 soil
 compaction,
 increased
 runoff
 through

alteration
 of
 landscape
 hydrology,
 emission
 of
 greenhouse
 gases
 such
 as
 carbon
 and

methane,
 and
 loss
 of
 wildlife
 habitat
 and
 biodiversity.

 Although
 practices
 of
 forestry

management
 have
 evolved
 to
 reduce
 impacts
 and
 ultimately
 protect
 the
 longevity
 of

timber
 harvesting,
 much
 of
 the
 landscape
 has
 already
 been
 impacted
 by
 these

operations
 (Lal
 et
 al.,
 2004;
 Lal,
 2007b).

Coal
 Mining

Mining
 impacts
 on
 soil
 include
 the
 effects
 of
 deforestation
 in
 combination

with
 disturbing
 the
 entire
 soil
 profile,
 impacting
 the
 physical,
 chemical
 and

biological
 properties
 of
 all
 the
 ‘overburden’
 that
 is
 removed.

 This
 displacement
 can
be
 up
 to
 several
 hundred
 meters
 belowground
 depending
 on
 the
 location
 of
 the
 coal

seem
 that
 was
 mined.
 In
 mountainous
 regions,
 mining
 operations
 can
 also
 result
 in

landslides
 and
 sedimentation,
 or
 vast
 deposits
 of
 sediment
 that
 often
 bury
 stream

corridors
 and
 impact
 aquatic
 ecosystems.

 The
 mixing
 of
 overburden
 with
 soil
 is

known
 as
 ‘spoil,’
 and
 often
 includes
 the
 oxidation
 of
 iron
 sulfide
 in
 water
 which

results
 in
 acid
 mine
 drainage
 (Haering
 et
 al.,
 2004;
 Daniels
 et
 al.,
 2004).

  There
 are
 fundamentally
 two
 different
 types
 of
 mine
 spoils
 –
 those
 that
 came

before
 1977
 and
 those
 that
 came
 after
 (Figure
 2).

 Due
 to
 the
 environmental

concerns
 of
 strip
 mining,
 the
 federal
 government
 passed
 the
 Surface
 Mining
 Control

and
 Reclamation
 Act
 of
 1977
 (SMCRA).

 Before
 the
 1970s,
 mine
 sites
 were
 reclaimed

with
 an
 exposed
 highwall
 left
 in
 tact,
 and
 the
 surrounding
 soils
 were
 left
 loose
 which

allowed
 for
 more
 sedimentation,
 but
 also
 greater
 porosity
 and
 water
 retention

capability
 that
 can
 promote
 root
 growth
 and
 development
 (Shresthra,
 2007).

 After

1977,
 one
 of
 the
 predominant
 objectives
 in
 mine
 reclamation
 involved
 grading
 the

site
 to
 a
 subjective
 conception
 of
 the
 approximate
 original
 contour
 and
 compacting

soils
 severely
 to
 reduce
 landslides
 and
 material
 transport
 post-­‐mining
 (Daniels
 et
 al,

2004).

 The
 compaction
 led
 to
 decreased
 porosity,
 aggregate
 formation,
 water

retention,
 microbial
 habitat,
 nutrient
 cycling
 etc.
 –
 essentially,
 a
 soil
 devoid
 of

health.

 The
 spoils
 are
 then
 hyrdoseeded
 with
 mixes
 of
 invasive
 grasses
 and
 legumes

that
 do
 not
 aid
 in
 nutrient
 cycling
 or
 carbon
 sequestration,
 but
 are
 inexpensive

options
 for
 basic
 erosion
 control
 (Booze-­‐Daniels
 et
 al.,
 2000).

To
 put
 the
 issue
 of
 soil
 degradation
 in
 context
 with
 other
 global
 issues,
 all
 of

the
 aforementioned
 industrial
 applications
 cause
 large
 amounts
 of
 soil
 carbon
 to
 be

emitted
 into
 the
 atmosphere
 and
 exacerbate
 the
 threat
 of
 climate
 change.

 After
 the

oceans,
 the
 soil
 system
 is
 the
 second
 largest
 active
 carbon
 reservoir
 on
 the
 planet

and
 has
 the
 second
 longest
 residence
 time
 meaning
 that
 it
 is
 a
 more
 stable
 carbon

pool
 (Lal,
 2007b).

We
 have
 discussed
 the
 significance
 of
 soil
 to
 our
 culture,
 the
 alarming
 rate
 at

which
 it
 is
 being
 depleted
 and
 the
 processes
 that
 contribute
 to
 its
 loss.

 Soil

formation
 is
 an
 event
 that
 occurs
 on
 geologic
 timescales
 of
 1000
 years
 and
 is

influenced
 by
 climate,
 topography,
 biota,
 the
 parent
 material
 and
 time.

 The
 majority

of
 soil
 is
 formed
 from
 the
 weathering
 of
 the
 parent
 material,
 or
 the
 rock
 underneath

(Brady
 and
 Weill).

 Topsoil,
 the
 upper
 few
 inches
 of
 the
 soil,
 is
 where
 the
 majority
 of

biological
 activity
 in
 the
 soil
 occurs.

 This
 is
 also
 the
 layer
 of
 soil
 that
 is
 being

degraded
 the
 most.
 Topsoil
 is
 a
 much
 more
 active
 system
 than
 the
 deep
 soil,
 and
 is

chiefly
 formed
 by
 the
 addition
 of
 organic
 matter
 from
 aboveground
 vegetation
 and

natural
 root
 decomposition
 (Albrecht,
 1938;
 Brady
 and
 Weill,
 2001).

 Topsoil

eventually
 decompose
 further
 and
 add
 to
 the
 humic
 and
 organic
 content
 of
 deep

soil.

 Using
 dedicated
 soil
 building
 and
 restoration
 techniques,
 we
 can
 regenerate

and
 restore
 the
 vitality
 of
 the
 topsoil
 in
 Appalachia
 in
 a
 few
 short
 years.
Figure
 2:
 Typical
 landforms
 created
 in
 the
 Appalachian
 coal
 region
 by
 surface
 coal
 mining

activities
 before
 (1A)
 and
 after
 (1B)
 passage
 and
 implementation
 of
 the
 Surface
 Mining

Control
 and
 Reclamation
 Act
 of
 1977.
 Mining
 before
 SMCRA
 was
 generally
 smaller
 in
 scale
 and

mining
 cuts
 excavated
 a
 higher
 proportion
 of
 pre-­weathered,
 leached
 and
 oxidized
 strata.

Post-­SMCRA
 mines
 are
 generally
 much
 larger
 in
 extent
 and
 take
 deeper
 cuts
 into
 more

reduced
 geologic
 strata
 (Daniels
 et
 al.,
 2004).

As
 Jenny
 said,
 soil
 is
 a
 system
 -­‐
 a
 living
 system.

 If
 properly
 managed,
 it
 can
 grow
 and

sustain
 itself.

 This
 is
 the
 opportunity:
 just
 as
 a
 single
 industrial
 process
 can
 cause

multiple
 social,
 economic
 and
 environmental
 issues,
 a
 single
 solution
 can
 provide
 a

multitude
 of
 beneficial
 effects.

Solutions

We
 will
 present
 an
 overview
 of
 specific
 soil
 restoration
 techniques
 and
 how

these
 can
 be
 applied
 to
 develop
 new
 enterprises.

 Each
 of
 these
 applications
 can
 be

researched
 into
 much
 more
 detail,
 and
 many
 local
 organizations
 have
 already

undertaken
 new
 initiatives
 to
 exploit
 the
 potential
 of
 utilizing
 healthy
 soil
 as
 a

foundation
 for
 a
 diversified
 and
 resilient
 local
 economy.

 Also,
 we
 want
 to
 recognize

that
 restoration
 in
 of
 itself
 is
 not
 enough.

 Forests
 and
 landscapes
 can
 be
 restored
 to

their
 native
 functions
 and
 eventually
 their
 native
 structures,
 but
 this
 completely

ignores
 the
 processes
 that
 led
 to
 the
 degradation
 and
 could
 just
 setup
 the
 landscape

to
 be
 exploited
 again
 (Hobbs,
 2006).

 Rather,
 we
 need
 to
 acknowledge
 the
 anthropic
nature
 of
 degradation
 and
 the
 capacity
 to
 develop
 solutions
 that
 address
 the

interaction
 between
 our
 culture
 and
 nature,
 essentially
 seeking
 to
 sustain
 the
 triple

bottom
 line
 of
 ecology,
 economy
 and
 society.

Engineered
 vs.
 Successional
 Soil
 Restoration

The
 conventional
 method
 of
 restoring
 degraded
 soils
 is
 to
 use
 large-­‐scale

machinery
 to
 engineer
 a
 new
 landscape.

 This
 alternative
 is
 selected
 when
 time
 is

seen
 as
 a
 limiting
 factor
 and
 restored
 landscapes
 are
 desired
 in
 the
 short
 term.

 If

the
 industrial
 operator
 or
 landowner
 is
 performing
 the
 restoration,
 then
 this
 is
 often

the
 best
 choice
 to
 reduce
 the
 impact
 on
 adjacent
 ecosystems
 and
 their
 associated

services.

 Degraded
 soils
 are
 tilled
 and
 fertilized
 as
 determined
 for
 productive
 land

use,
 with
 the
 focus
 being
 on
 the
 physical
 soil
 structure
 and
 chemical
 balance
 of

nutrients.

 Biological
 considerations
 are
 usually
 limited
 to
 aboveground
 species

diversity
 and
 establishment,
 and
 little
 regard
 is
 paid
 to
 underground
 soil
 functions

and
 bioactivity.

 Often,
 topsoil
 substitutes
 are
 imported
 and
 seeded
 or
 reforested

with
 early
 successional
 species
 of
 vegetation.

 Native
 soils
 are
 sometimes
 used

because
 of
 their
 source
 as
 a
 native
 seed
 bank.

 The
 soils
 have
 to
 be
 applied
 as
 soon

as
 possible
 as
 storage
 reduces
 seed
 germination
 rates
 (Hobbs,
 2006;
 Bradshaw,

1997).

Criticism
 of
 engineered
 restoration
 techniques
 include
 that
 they
 often
 reduce

the
 effort
 down
 to
 the
 minimum
 requirements
 determined
 by
 either
 a
 contract
 or

legislation
 such
 as
 the
 Clean
 Air
 Act,
 Clean
 Water
 Act,
 Resource
 Conservation
 and

Recovery
 Act,
 National
 Environmental
 Policy
 Act,
 etc.

 Also,
 all
 the
 stakeholders

impacted
 are
 usually
 not
 included
 in
 the
 decision-­‐making
 process,
 with
 local

communities
 generally
 bearing
 the
 brunt
 of
 the
 long-­‐term
 associated
 costs
 as
 in
 the

case
 of
 SMCRA
 and
 its
 decisions
 made
 by
 regulators,
 coal
 companies
 and
 frequently

absent
 landowners.

 Depending
 on
 the
 scale
 and
 length
 of
 time
 that
 the
 restoration

process
 requires,
 this
 could
 be
 either
 a
 boom
 or
 a
 blip
 to
 the
 local
 economy
 and
 job

production.

Natural
 techniques
 of
 soil
 restoration
 focus
 on
 promoting
 natural

successional
 functions
 of
 the
 ecosystem
 (Bradshaw,
 1997).

 These
 restoration

methods
 require
 more
 labor,
 take
 more
 time,
 and
 have
 historically
 been
 on
 more
 of

a
 community
 level
 than
 large
 landscape
 scales.

 A
 celebrated
 example
 of
 large
 scale

successional
 restoration
 is
 Willie
 Smits’
 conservation
 initiative
 in
 Indonesia
 that

regenerated
 thousands
 of
 hectares
 of
 degraded
 landscapes
 into
 a
 lush
 and
 native

rainforest,
 while
 educating
 and
 employing
 thousands
 of
 locals
 (Christern,
 2009).

Figures
 2
 and
 3
 show
 the
 dramatic
 change
 in
 less
 than
 5
 years
 of
 2000
 hectares

being
 reforested
 and
 the
 diversity
 of
 over
 1000
 species
 of
 vegetation
 restored.
 This

example
 could
 be
 especially
 applicable
 to
 the
 region
 of
 Appalachia.
 Successional

restoration
 focuses
 on
 community
 ecology
 that
 restores
 biological,
 chemical
 and

physical
 ecosystem
 functions
 rather
 than
 just
 erosion
 control,
 specific
 species

establishment
 and
 ground
 cover.

 Although
 successional
 restoration
 can
 include

machinery,
 it
 is
 usually
 an
 economically
 and
 ecologically
 less
 intensive
 alternative
than
 an
 engineered
 solution.

 More
 labor
 means
 a
 more
 community
 derived

approach
 and
 allows
 for
 more
 input
 from
 those
 that
 are
 affected
 by
 the
 process.

Figures
 3
 (top)
 and
 4(bottom):
 Wildlife
 biologist
 Willie
 Smits
 restores
 a
 tropical
 rainforest
 in

Borneo,
 Indonesia
 to
 help
 conserve
 orangutan
 populations.
Criticism
 of
 successional
 restoration
 comes
 down
 to
 funding
 and
 time.

 If

communities
 are
 restoring
 their
 own
 degraded
 landscapes,
 then
 who
 is
 paying
 for

the
 project?

 Also,
 if
 pollution
 and
 toxins
 are
 involved,
 then
 a
 slower
 restoration

process
 could
 be
 more
 costly.

 However,
 there
 are
 applications
 such
 as
 biofuels
 and

biochar
 production
 that
 could
 produce
 a
 commodity
 while
 also
 restoring
 degraded

environments,
 known
 as
 ‘win-­‐win
 ecology’
 (Rosenzweig,
 2006).

Agricultural
 Soil
 Restoration

A
 large
 portion
 of
 the
 U.S.
 is
 still
 farmland,
 and
 the
 majority
 of
 this
 is

cultivated
 as
 industrial
 agriculture
 (NRCS,
 2004).

 One
 of
 the
 most
 common
 and

destructive
 practices
 to
 soil
 health
 is
 mechanical
 tillage,
 which
 has
 caused
 a
 loss
 of

nearly
 50%
 of
 soil
 carbon
 in
 our
 croplands
 and
 also
 perpetuates
 soil
 loss
 and

degradation
 (Lal,
 2007a).

 A
 number
 of
 conservative
 tillage
 strategies
 have
 been

developed
 over
 the
 past
 40
 years,
 but
 the
 most
 effective
 one
 has
 been
 no-­‐till

management.

 No-­‐till
 agriculture
 utilizes
 residual
 mulch
 in
 combination
 with

seeders
 that
 do
 not
 plow
 the
 land.

 It
 is
 currently
 employed
 on
 95
 million
 hectares
 of

farmlands
 worldwide,
 and
 is
 being
 adopted
 at
 an
 increasing
 rate.

 The
 effects
 of
 no-­‐
till
 are
 dramatic
 in
 the
 reduction
 of
 degradation
 and
 actually
 increasing
 soil
 carbon

sequestration.

 Certain
 environments
 that
 have
 a
 predominant
 claypan
 and
 cold

springs
 might
 see
 reduced
 yields
 to
 no-­‐till
 agriculture
 and
 it
 should
 be
 used
 on
 a

case-­‐by-­‐case
 basis
 (Lal,
 2007a).

  Strategies
 to
 maintain
 soil
 fertility
 include
 crop
 rotations,
 conventionally

performed
 with
 a
 crop/soy/fallow
 rotation.

 The
 benefits
 of
 ‘green
 manure,’
 or

leguminous
 cover
 crops,
 have
 received
 increased
 recognition,
 as
 these
 systems

increase
 soil
 structure,
 water
 retention
 and
 nitrogen
 fixation
 without
 the
 use
 of

fertilizer
 (FAO,
 2002).

 The
 principle
 of
 cover
 crops
 used
 in
 the
 winter
 harkens
 back

to
 William
 Albrecht,
 or
 the
 ‘father
 of
 soil
 fertility.’

 Albrecht
 said
 that
 to
 minimize

organic
 matter
 and
 nutrient
 loss,
 the
 soil
 should
 be
 treated
 like
 a
 natural
 ecosystem

and
 covered
 at
 all
 times,
 a
 concept
 later
 espoused
 by
 Wes
 Jackson
 (Albrecht,
 1938;

Jackson,
 1980).

Over
 35
 years
 ago
 in
 Kansas,
 The
 Land
 Institute
 proclaimed
 that
 agricultural

tilled
 systems
 should
 be
 managed
 more
 like
 native
 ecosystems,
 and
 set
 out
 to

develop
 a
 perennial
 grain
 system
 from
 traditional
 plant
 breeding
 schemes
 that

would
 not
 require
 any
 tillage
 and
 be
 planted
 in
 polycultures
 to
 mimic
 the
 native

Kansas
 prairie
 ecosystem.

 The
 ambition
 will
 be
 realized
 within
 the
 decade,

according
 to
 Jackson,
 and
 will
 turn
 the
 practice
 of
 global
 agriculture
 upside
 down.

Wendell
 Berry
 calls
 the
 effort
 ‘an
 example
 of
 a
 thoroughly
 informed,
 technically

competent,
 practical
 intelligence
 working
 by
 the
 measure
 of
 high
 ecological
 and

cultural
 standards”

 (Jackson,
 1980).

Several
 other
 strategies
 in
 agricultural
 production
 have
 proven
 to
 be

effective
 at
 crop
 production
 and
 restoration/maintenance
 of
 soil
 health.

 Keyline

design
 was
 developed
 by
 the
 Australian
 farmer
 and
 engineer,
 P.A.
 Yeomans.

 The
design
 takes
 into
 account
 topographic
 and
 climate
 factors
 to
 maximize
 the
 potential

of
 water
 flow
 on
 an
 agricultural
 landscape.

 Combined
 with
 contour
 plowing

strategies,
 the
 technique
 will
 passively
 deter
 runoff
 from
 the
 valley
 center
 and

eventually
 allow
 more
 water
 to
 be
 retained
 in
 the
 soils
 and
 reduce
 erosion

(Yeomans,
 1954).

 Another
 restoration
 and
 conservation
 technique
 examines
 the

connection
 between
 animals
 and
 land
 management
 in
 pasturelands.

 Holistic

Management
 is
 a
 framework
 that
 developed
 the
 current
 theories
 behind
 rotational

grazing.

 The
 wildlife
 biologist
 Allan
 Savory
 saw
 that
 ungulates,
 or
 hoofed
 animals,

help
 fertilize
 their
 surroundings
 from
 their
 manure
 and
 increase
 germination
 by

breaking
 apart
 seeds
 with
 their
 hoofs.

 The
 process
 only
 worked
 in
 natural
 systems

if
 predators
 were
 nearby
 and
 the
 animals
 did
 not
 graze
 at
 the
 same
 location

regularly
 (Savory
 and
 Butterfield,
 1999).

 Holistic
 Management
 builds
 upon
 these

observations
 and
 looks
 at
 how
 to
 restore
 soil
 organic
 matter
 and
 manage
 grasslands

through
 rotational
 livestock
 grazing.

 Although
 Appalachia
 is
 not
 a
 native
 grassland

biome,
 Holistic
 Management
 could
 be
 employed
 on
 degraded
 farmlands
 and
 mine

sites
 that
 are
 currently
 scrublands.

 Additional
 systems
 such
 as
 biointensive

agriculture
 and
 permaculture
 focus
 on
 soil
 development
 and
 mimicking
 a
 natural

system
 that
 follows
 the
 ecological
 principles
 of
 diversity
 and
 adaptability.

 Both
 of

these
 methodologies
 promote
 the
 use
 of
 keylining
 and
 rotational
 grazing.

Native
 Warm
 Season
 Perennial
 Grasses

  Central
 Appalachia’s
 native
 ecosystem
 is
 an
 Eastern
 hardwood
 mixed

mesophytic
 forest.

 But,
 there
 are
 still
 grass
 species
 that
 are
 native
 to
 the
 region;

they
 are
 just
 outcompeted
 due
 to
 climatic
 factors
 that
 helped
 establish
 an
 Eastern

forest
 vs.
 a
 midwestern
 prairie
 ecosystem.

 Native
 warm
 season
 perennial
 grasses

(NWSG)
 are
 the
 backbone
 of
 the
 midwestern
 prairie
 system
 and
 the
 principal
 source

of
 soil
 organic
 carbon
 to
 one
 of
 the
 richest
 and
 most
 productive
 soils
 in
 the
 world.

NWSG
 focus
 their
 energy
 on
 developing
 root
 systems
 more
 than
 aboveground

vegetation,
 and
 develop
 roots
 that
 can
 go
 down
 over
 3-­‐4
 meters
 in
 depth
 (Figure
 5)

(Miller
 and
 Dickinson,
 1999).

 The
 root
 systems
 can
 penetrate
 compacted
 soils
 and

subsoil,
 making
 them
 ideal
 for
 restoring
 degraded
 landscapes
 and
 especially
 on

mine
 spoils.

 NWSG
 also
 are
 very
 effective
 at
 cycling
 nutrients,
 increasing
 water

retention,
 and
 sequestering
 carbon
 as
 their
 root
 systems
 go
 very
 deep
 below
 the

surface
 (Clark
 et
 al.,
 2003;
 Elkins
 et
 al.,
 1997).

  Certain
 NWSG
 are
 highly
 tolerant
 of
 acidic
 and
 nutrient
 poor
 soils.

 These

grasses
 require
 minimal
 inputs
 and
 have
 also
 been
 researched
 for
 their

aboveground
 vegetation
 development
 and
 biofuel
 feedstock
 productivity
 (Ceotto,

2008;
 Tilman
 et
 al.,
 2006).

 The
 most
 researched
 grasses
 for
 biofuel
 potential
 that

are
 native
 in
 Appalachia
 and
 can
 tolerate
 degraded
 soils
 include
 switchgrass

(Panicum
 virgatum),
 atlantic
 coastal
 panicgrass
 (Panicum
 amarum)
 and
 big

bluestem
 (Andropogon
 gerardii)
 (Parrish
 and
 Fike,
 2005;
 Fike,
 2006).