SOS Forests

To Log or Not to Log — Water Is the Question

For critical thinking about California’s forest resources, it’s hard to beat the California Forestry Association. Their latest issue (Summer 2008, Vol 12 No. 1) of California Forests is entitled “To Log or Not to Log,” and it’s all about… water!

As David Bischel, President of the CFA puts it:

Forests are water factories for our thirsty state.

Today, water is at stake in a way it never has been before. Roughly 75 percent of California’s water originates in forested watersheds. How we manage those watersheds has a great implication on the quality and quantity of water we deliver downstream for fish, farms and families. …

We’ve also learned that forests left alone will burn, sometimes catastrophically and often placing communities at risk. When that happens, water gets choked with silt and debris, and fish habitat and municipal water systems are damaged.

We know that on some public forestland, two to three times as many trees are growing as the land can adequately support. When too many trees compete for water, less is left to deliver downstream and the entire system is disrupted.

The entire issue is available online [here] (3.1 MB). Articles include “Conserve Water at the Source — What We Do, or Don’t Do, in Forests Has a Tremendous Impact on Our Water” by Norman Pillsbury, Ph.D., professor of forest hydrology and watershed management at Cal Poly - San Luis Obispo:

The trend of restricting forest management, often in the name of protecting water quality for salmon and other aquatic species, is having serious, negative consequences on California’s water quality. …

Well-managed forests play a critical role in assuring that Californians have abundant, clean water. Sustainable forest management can reduce the cost of providing clean drinking water, provide spawning gravels and cool temperatures fish need, and mitigate the affects of storm flooding and mudslides.

Forests where “hands-off” management prevails, conversely, are more prone to overcrowding, wildfire and mudslides that can degrade water quality for years. …

High-intensity fires do more than scorch the surface; they create a crust-like hydrophobic layer below the surface, an oilbased film that greatly slows the penetration of water. When rain follows catastrophic fire, water quickly saturates the exposed topsoil and hits the hydrophobic layer about two inches underground. Since the water cannot seep into the ground any further, the topsoil, ash and debris gets washed away. Mud fills nearby watercourses, devastating wildlife habitat and polluting drinking water.

From “Climate Change Heats Up Water Issues” by Ken Fulgham, Ph.D., chair of the Forestry and Wildland Resources Dept., Humboldt State University:

In addition to releasing millions of tons of greenhouse gases, catastrophic wildfires have a horrific impact on water resources. With vegetation scorched, there is little to hold soil during post-fire rainfall. Catastrophic wildfires generally lead to sediment yield increases, more mudslides, and years of degraded water quality.

Here is where multiple policy worlds begin to intersect!

Californians spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on firefighting. Most agency reaction to the 2003 and 2007 Southern California wildfires, Lake Tahoe’s Angora Fire and every other major wildfire has been to increase initial response capabilities – more air tankers, helicopters and fire trucks. It is politically favorable to spend more on firefighting capabilities than to suggest sound forest management to reduce wildfire intensity in the first place.

Californians certainly would be better served by an ounce of prevention rather than another pound of cure.

Why not manage our forestlands to reduce fuel loads? We can use excess forestland vegetation that would go up as smoke in uncontrolled wildfires to produce clean bioenergy. We can save millions in fire suppression costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect water quality – all at the same time.

From “Southern California’s Dirty Water Challenge” by Daniel Cozad, president of Integrated Planning and Management Inc., a consulting firm specializing in water and resources planning throughout California:

After the Grand Prix, Old, and Padua fires in 2003, Southern Californians paid more than $300 million to mitigate post-fire impacts on water quality. We also paid to replace fouled water with cleaner water from the State Water Project or Colorado River. …

Healthy, well-managed forests filter water naturally and effectively. They absorb nitrates, salts, phosphorus and other elements, and lower the cost of providing clean drinking water.

Unmanaged forests are more prone to catastrophic wildfires that wreak havoc on water quality. When forests burn in high intensity wildfires, there’s very little left to hold soils on the hills. Rain inevitably washes dirt, rocks and pollutants like mercury, lead and zinc into watercourses. Wildlife habitat can be decimated, and water must be cleaned at great expense for human consumption or allowed to flow to the ocean.

Following the 2003 wildfires, sediment loads reached 50 times their pre-fire levels. An estimated 700 million cubic yards of sand and debris clogged streams and water delivery systems.

Managing forests to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire may be the most cost effective way to protect Southern California’s water quality and availability. Yet despite the clear connection between managing forests and protecting water quality, and some efforts to better manage forests, many Southern California watersheds remain at risk.

From “Water Flowing, Lights On — Watersheds Quench Thirst and Yield Clean Energy” by Einar Maisch, director of strategic affairs for the Placer County Water Agency:

Fire may be the biggest single threat to water quality. Not just fire, but catastrophic fire. Catastrophic wildfire can lay waste to watersheds and degrade water quality for years. …

Fires driven by excess fuels burn hotter and cause more damage than lowlevel fire. Severe wildfires lead to rock slides, mud slides and significant sediment increases in watercourses and storage reservoirs. They wreak havoc on the environment and threaten our infrastructure.

Catastrophic wildfires can neutralize a power plant from the damage they cause to water quality. When post-fire rains hit, mud and debris can clog in-take valves and shut down facilities. Post-fire mud also can block delivery systems that water consumers rely on and bury salmon spawning gravels.

To log or not to log? The question is better phrased (rhetorically): to manage forests sustainably or suffer the slings and arrows of devastated landscapes and watersheds from catastrophic fires.