Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNeary, Daniel G.
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-20T22:50:18Z
dc.date.available2018-04-20T22:50:18Z
dc.date.issued2014-04-12
dc.identifier.issn0272-6106
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/627351
dc.description.abstractIn the quest to develop renewable energy sources, woody and agricultural crops are being viewed as an important source of low environmental impact feedstocks for electrical generation and biofuels production (Somerville et al. 2010, Berndes and Smith 2013). In countries like the USA, the bioenergy feedstock potential is dominated by agriculture (73%) (Perlack et al. 2005). In others like Finland the largest potential comes from forest resources. Forest bioenergy operational activities encompass activities of a continuing and cyclical nature such as stand establishment, mid-rotation silviculture, harvesting, product transportation, wood storage, energy production, ash recycling, and then back to stand establishment (Neary 2013). All of these have the potential to produce varying levels of disturbance that might affect site quality and water resources but the frequency for any given site is low (Berndes 2002, Shepard 2006, Neary and Koestner 2012). Agricultural production of feedstocks involves annual activities that have a much higher potential to affect soils and water resources. The way forward relative to assessing the soil and water impacts of bioenergy systems and the sustainability of biomass production rests with three approaches that could be used individually but are more likely to be employed in some combination (Neary and Langeveld 2013). These approaches are: (1) utilizing characteristics that can be quantified in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies by software, remote sensing, or other accounting methods (e.g.,greenhouse gas balances, energy balance, etc.; Cherubini and Strømman 2011); (2) measuring and monitoring ecosystem characteristics that can be evaluated in a more or less qualitative way (e.g., maintaining soil organic carbon) that might provide insights on potential productivity and sustainability, and (3) employing other proactive management characteristics such as Best Management Practices that are aimed at preventing environmental degradation.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherArizona-Nevada Academy of Scienceen_US
dc.rightsCopyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author.en_US
dc.subjectHydrology -- Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectWater resources development -- Arizona.en_US
dc.subjectHydrology -- Southwestern states.en_US
dc.subjectWater resources development -- Southwestern states.en_US
dc.titleBEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR PROTECTING WATER QUALITY IN BIOENERGY FEEDSTOCK PRODUCTIONen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeProceedingsen_US
dc.contributor.departmentUSDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Stationen_US
dc.identifier.journalHydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwesten_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThis article is part of the Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest collections. Digital access to this material is made possible by the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science and the University of Arizona Libraries. For more information about items in this collection, contact anashydrology@gmail.com.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-04-20T22:50:18Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
hwr_43_16_20.pdf
Size:
204.2Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record