West Virginia: Making plans to prove big coal is liable for hydrologic atrocities
There has been some big floods in West Virginia recently which
residents attribute to the changes in hydrology due to Mountain Top
Removal. Apparently the mining and logging industry both argue that
logging and/or mining doesn’t significantly affect water flow. This
attached document suggests otherwise. This is not surprising, I think
we all know logging has watershed effects. But what was interesting to
me is to see how much effect logging can result. While this largely
focuses on eastern hardwood forests, I have seen enough studies in
the West to know it applies to other ecosystems as well. I have
highlighted some of the important passages. The parts related to
logging are particularly significant since they document how much
logging roads, soil compaction from logging, removal of trees (hence
less transpiration and rain intercept) affects streams flows,
sedimentation, etc.. In particular they refer to some research where
“best management practices” were implemented and they still showed
significant departure from natural unlogged conditions, suggesting
that it’s impossible to completely negate the negatives on watersheds
associated with logging. Any presumed benefit to logging/thinning has
to be balanced by the negatives of logging, which includes impacts to
watersheds, before anyone can determine whether it’s a good thing to
do. This document might help people in talking about this impact.
Flood Advisory Technical Task Force Responsive Summary (PDF)
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/pdf/appendices/h/wvflooding/Flooding_Study_Summary.pdf
wuerthner@earthlink.net
Removal. Apparently the mining and logging industry both argue that
logging and/or mining doesn’t significantly affect water flow. This
attached document suggests otherwise. This is not surprising, I think
we all know logging has watershed effects. But what was interesting to
me is to see how much effect logging can result. While this largely
focuses on eastern hardwood forests, I have seen enough studies in
the West to know it applies to other ecosystems as well. I have
highlighted some of the important passages. The parts related to
logging are particularly significant since they document how much
logging roads, soil compaction from logging, removal of trees (hence
less transpiration and rain intercept) affects streams flows,
sedimentation, etc.. In particular they refer to some research where
“best management practices” were implemented and they still showed
significant departure from natural unlogged conditions, suggesting
that it’s impossible to completely negate the negatives on watersheds
associated with logging. Any presumed benefit to logging/thinning has
to be balanced by the negatives of logging, which includes impacts to
watersheds, before anyone can determine whether it’s a good thing to
do. This document might help people in talking about this impact.
Flood Advisory Technical Task Force Responsive Summary (PDF)
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/pdf/appendices/h/wvflooding/Flooding_Study_Summary.pdf
wuerthner@earthlink.net
Posted via email from Deane’s posterous
December 18th, 2008 in
West Virginia