Better forest management would not only prevent wildfires but could serve as a valuable water-conservation tool, according to a study published Tuesday.
California could save billions of gallons annually by undertaking significant forest thinning operations, according to scientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation and the Sierra Critical Zone Observatory.
“We’ve known for some time that managed forest fires are the only way to restore the majority of overstocked western forests and reduce the risk of catastrophic fires,” James Roche, a National Park Service hydrologist and lead author of the new study, said in a statement. “We can now add the potential benefit of increased water yield from these watersheds.”
Indeed, a variety of scientific studies published in the last decade argue fire-suppression efforts in California have had a detrimental impact. The typical argument says that fire occurred naturally for centuries, allowing the forest to thin itself out and provide periods of regeneration. With fewer fires, tree density has grown. Now, when fires do occur, they burn with an unnatural intensity that creates ecological and economic disasters.
Last year’s Thomas Fire was the largest by acreage in California’s history, while the spate of wildfires that ravaged Northern California last fall was the most economically disastrous.
Tuesday’s study says thinning projects could also help conserve water, as trees require an enormous amount of water to carry out basic biological functions.
“By reducing the water used by plants, more rainfall flows into rivers and accumulates in groundwater,” said Richard Yuretich of the National Science Foundation.
Along with sucking up water the ecosystem could otherwise allocate to groundwater, river and reservoir replenishment, trees also undergo a process scientists call evapotranspiration.
Evapotranspiration is basically how trees “sweat,” as they emit water through tiny pores in their leaves.
According to the study, excessive evapotranspiration could interact with climate change to harm an already fragile California ecosystem reeling from years of prolonged drought with the prospect of more bouts of extreme weather.
The study, published in the scientific journal Ecohydrology, looked at observation towers in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and United States Geological Survey databases and found more water conserved in areas where forests had been thinned for fire management.
For example, Kings River Basin saved 3.7 billion gallons of water per year during an 18-year period beginning in 1990, the study said. Similarly, the American River Basin experienced a savings of 17 billion gallons per year over the same period due to similar thinning practices.
But achieving this type of significant, widespread forest restoration throughout the entire Sierra would require enormous spending.
The U.S. Forest Service says about 6 to 8 million of the 21 million acres of forest land it manages need immediate restoration, according to the study. Nationwide, 58 million acres are in need of immediate work.
For California alone, that work carries a price tag that could rise as high as $10 billion.
But the study authors hope the projects they espouse bring enough economic benefits to pay for themselves.
“Downstream users who benefit from the increased water yield are an important potential revenue stream that can help offset some of the costs of restoration,” University of California Merced scientist Roger Bales, a study co-author, said.
Yes, those forests should be thinned. And if done intelligently, might even produce a profit-which is why I wonder about: “But achieving this type of significant, widespread forest restoration throughout the entire Sierra would require enormous spending.” If many of the trees don’t have value as sawtimber- then they could have value if a viable biomass power market were to develop. Unfortunately, a small number of forestry hating fanatics have slowed the development of this industry. The EPA Secretary Pruitt just announced that the EPA will consider woody biomass to be carbon neutral. Of course that’s a controversial decision- but a biomass market could be the solution to thinning forests that do not yet have commercial timber value.
Wonder what the carbon foot print would be for a project such as your suggesting? Certainly smaller than a wild fire. Southern California has some pine forests but most mountains are manzanita, sage and cactus. Most of our hillsides do not support conifers. Oaks if anything and in a few areas there are eucalyptus groves but those a rare. If there is a bit of time to pass before the rain comes the grasses will begin to show in burn areas. We need to reseed by flights of rye grass seed broadcasting air planes to aid in soil retention. We are to have a very big muddy flow of a winter, no doubt. Preparations should be made right now to prevent another Montecito in all the recent burn areas bordering habitation zones. It’s going to be a bad year for mud slides along our highway and rail systems. Burying utility lines, incorporating mandatory solar with back up batteries is a good approach to the elimination of electric line borne sparks anywhere. Sensible zoning laws requiring fire proof materials and anti fire designs like monolithic dome structures are a good start but good luck on enforcing those kind of zoning laws, the wealthy will not be confined to a specific design. Water sisterns specifically for fire use for each dwelling with off grid power supply to pump the water would be wise. The wealthy communities as well as the rest of us need to get real about wildfire prevention and management. Once the east winds arrive and fire gets into your city limits it’s near impossible to stop it. Fire does not discriminate economically or any other way. Form neighborhood fire suppression coalitions and try to instill sensible anti wild fire zoning laws.
This true , read the books on. When I was 12-13 years old one or more of my uncles worked with CA. Forestry to help thin out and clean out underbrush. This was in the 60’s . A lot of our neighbors helped in this project and the Youth Authority and other agencies. I live in Missouri now and they have what they call prescribed burns and there are plenty of people live in those forest acres. They don’t get upset when the a prescribed or planned burn is done because it helps nature. Loggers are out too, the thin out the forests. When did California stop this? Your legislatures and administration is at fault for this. No excuses! No political agenda! Safety of the people comes first!
How have you missed the difference in climate between Missouri and California? And our forests are NATIONAL forests managed by the “US” Forest Service. They are managed no differently than any other states NATIONAL forests. I don’t believe Missouri has predominantly national forests as we do here in the west.
I am not commenting on the biomass energy idea. But just noting that thinning is not very profitable for timber companies. Those trees have to be hand felled, which is more expensive and risky (to the logger and damage to surrounding trees). Timber companies in general like clearcut logging. It is the most profitable. And terrible for fire, resulting in feet of dead slash and even aged overstocked timber stands.
We can put tens of thousands of people to work in multiple trades thinning our forests, build biomass plants and all the logistics. It would cost to start, but if you keep it private, it can more then pay for itself