Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:55 am
by Crankmas
I wonder if they'll have one of those branch shredding machines that turns everything into mulch, those are kewl.
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 5:54 pm
by Alan Evil
UK gave the reason recently that this was a "good opportunity" to observe the impact of logging. You mean to tell me we have a shortage of logging in this State?
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:11 pm
by charlie
OK, I'm as much of a tree hugging hippie as anyone around here but to lend credibility to efforts like these you have to do your research. It's flying off the handle about things that hurts conservation efforts as much as anything.
I haven't done a ton of research concerning this effort, but I did enough to know that there are questions to the legitimacy of this reactionary effort.....
http://www.ca.uky.edu/forestry/rf-facts.pdf
Robinson Forest is ~15,000 acres. They plan to log ~800 acres, in a research forest, managed by the UK Agricultural director, so they can measure the process of logging impacts on stream beds and continual reforestation issues. This is an attempt to document and provide standards for healthy logging processes (that can be monitored and enforced) all over the state. I've seen nothing regarding strip mining, from a credible source anyways.
.....Will the Streamside Management Zone Study Impair Streams at Robinson Forest?
The SMZ study is a large one due to the research requirements of the project. Ten
relatively small (first order) watersheds of approximately 140 acres will be examined. All
of these are contained in the Clemons Fork watershed. Eight of these totaling
approximately 1,100 acres will be subjected to treatment (harvesting). The other two will
remain untreated. The water and biota from all of these areas have been and will remain
under measurement. The area involved in the treatments covers about 30% of the
Clemons Fork watershed. All timber harvesting equipment will be monitored using
onboard GPS equipment as a part of the research. All timber will be skidded away from
the streams and removed from the forest through adjoining lands. No treatments are on
the main stem of Clemons Fork. Suspended sediment, water quality, and water quantity
effects are predicted to occur in the small watersheds involved in this study and to a
significantly lesser degree in the main stem of Clemons Fork. However, due to the size
of the treated areas and the nature of the treatments, stream water impacts will be short-
term (on the order of less than 5 years) and will not permanently degrade or impair the
treated sub-watersheds or the larger Clemons Fork watershed.
So yeah, it's a logging effort, but there are already logging efforts all over the place and that ain't gonna stop. Best case scenario, some smart fukkers do it, measure the impact, and influence logging processes in the future. Sounds pretty evil to me.
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:31 pm
by charlie
Now, upon further research I found this op ed article from a botanist I know and hung out with at The Nature Conservancy.......
http://www.kentucky.com/589/story/179548.html
He mentions nothing about mining. Seems he's more concerned by the legitimacy of the research processes. I get the feeling he's thinking these people are not driven by evil, so much as incompetence in providing standards for a useful research project. In a perfect world, every project would be run by competent botanists.
So, upon further review, they probably need to review the plan better before they execute and make damn sure the cash goes back into the forest.
That said, those pics implying mountain top removal in all of Robinson Forest when it's simply controlled logging slated for less then 10% of the land, on outlying tracts, compromises the legitimacy of conservation efforts.
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:31 pm
by charlie
postcoun+
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:02 am
by ems
It's true the "research" proposal that Charlie mentioned doesn't make any references to mining and that only 800 acres are eligable for logging at the moment, but what that article probably didn't mention was the fact that this all part of a large plan that was approved by the BOT in 2004 which permits not only the current tract, but another 5,000 acres to be logged.
Also of interest is the "lands unsuitable for mining" title which currently protects the main block is not permanent. Once the biological diversity which makes Robinson Forrest unique has been sufficiently interupted or destroyed, that heading will be revoked and the forest will once again be vulnerable. According to a statement made by UK in 2003 there is 2.7 BILLION dollars worth of coal under the main tract. How far do you think the BOT would go to break open that piggy bank?
As a side note, in 1992 when the Laural Fork region of Robinson Forrest was mined 35 million dollars were set aside to create an endowment fund for the Robinson Scholars program. The fund however is now bankrupt. Even at current tuition rates the 418 scholarship awarded add up to less than 3 million dollars. Where do you think the rest of that money went?
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:07 am
by ems
Oh yeah and there's actually only about 10,000 acres acres left. 4,000+ have already been logged and strip mined.
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:29 am
by Saxman
If there's 2.7 billion in coal there, that forest is history. Since the state can't afford to make UK a top 25 institution, it will have to get the money wherever it can.
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:33 am
by Wes
As tough as it is, trees are renewable and do grow back very quickly, geologically speaking. But it is nice to have a little chunk of forest to play in. But, does anyone actually go there? How many of the people that are all up in arms have been there in the last year? Ever?
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:45 am
by pigsteak
wes, quit muddying the water with specifics. it takes away from our drama......