California juniper findings disputed

Basin experts: Management of juniper helps water supply

By TY BEAVER

H&N Staff Writer 

November 1, 2007

ABOVE: A historic photo of the Olene Gap in 1904 shows very few juniper in the area.

BELOW: A hillside in the same area in 2005 is nearly covered with juniper.

'

   Juniper management may not be providing as big a boost to water supplies in the Klamath Basin as previously thought. 

   Researchers with the University of California system reported in the latest California Agriculture magazine that juniper management programs likely do not substantially benefit water conservation in the Basin. 

   While they respect and agree with the information and research the article’s authors presented, those in the Basin who conduct juniper management said the article doesn’t incorporate all the information and its conclusions are hypothetical at best. 

   Article ‘not helpful’ 

   What’s worse, people such as Danette Watson, Klamath Basin restoration manager with the Klamath Watershed Partnership, said the article could discourage people from funding or practicing juniper management, even though there are benefits. 

   “I’m concerned an article like that isn’t helpful,” she said. 

   Western juniper has expanded throughout the Klamath Basin and the Klamath River watershed as a result of fire suppression and other land use measures. The trees strain water supplies because of their demand for water. 

   Water is a resource in the Basin that has caused significant environmental and economical impacts. The shutoff of irrigation water in 2001 devastated the agricultural community only to be followed by a massive fish die-off the next year after irrigation was restored. 

   Used extensively 

   Juniper management has been used extensively on the Oregon and California sides of the Basin, such as in Modoc County and around the Sprague River . 

   In an article in the October-December 2007 edition of California Agriculture, California researchers indicated that while there might be some benefit to smaller streams and creeks through juniper management, the overall effect of treatment doesn’t give a substantial boost to water supplies. 

   “Research published to date indicates that increasing water yield by juniper conversion is only feasible in portions of the Scott River , Shasta River , Butte Valley and southern Lost River watersheds where annual precipitation is greater than 17.7 inches,” the article reported. 

   No local comparison 

   Watson and Hugh Barrett, a private consultant with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, said the article contained a lot of information, but also lacked a strictly local comparison. 

   The researchers used results from similar juniper removal projects elsewhere in the West, including Arizona . Precipitation and geology vary so much that Watson debated the legitimacy of comparison. 

   Barrett said his main concern was the title of the article — “Juniper removal may not increase overall Klamath River Basin water yields”— which he felt didn’t truly reflect the nature of the piece.

National Enquirer title 

   “It’s like the editor of the National Enquirer wrote the headline,” he said. 

   Watson and Barrett said they could not predict how much surface water is saved or created by removing juniper. Rather, removal targets the hydrologic condition of the watershed, helping the soil to hold more water and restore groundwater storage.
Increased stream flows 

   Participating landowners have commented that juniper removal has restored springs and increased creek flows on their land. Watson said that those examples are signs that removal does help, but adds that differing conditions each year may lead to different hydrologic benefits. 

   The California researchers, Watson and Barrett all agree that more research is needed to fully understand the benefit of juniper removal. Barrett noted one researcher is studying it in Crook County , Oregon with promising results so far. 

   The most damaging aspect of the article is that Watson and Barrett fear it may discourage people from funding and participating in the projects when the article specifically didn’t refute that there are some benefits.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Daily/Skins/heraldandnews/

navigator.asp?skin=heraldandnews