Comment Policy
This is a moderated blog. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, we expect that participants will treat each other with respect. We will not post comments that contain vulgar or abusive language; personal attacks of any kind; or offensive terms that target specific ethnic or racial groups. We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly “off topic” or that promote services or products.
Some people use aliases on this blog; no comments “outing” them will be allowed.
Here’s a web-site with a focus similar to yours and with a lot of substantive comments and graphics. Written by an F.S. retiree, it provides another perspective on public land management and especially “use vs. preservation” and renewable energy from these lands.
Thanks, Mac..could you please add the link?
He linked through his name, Sharon.
http://www.wvmcconnell.net/
I took a look and there is some good stuff there, Mac. We need your experience. Many of us are western folk but, eastern forests are starting to garner their own share of preservationist issues. I’ve been lucky to have worked in the De Soto, Sumter, Ouachita and Allegheny National Forests, seeing both differences and similarities with western forests. Imagine having to dredge up ancient Dendrology “brain sludge” to do forest inventory in South Carolina. TWENTY different oaks?!?!?
Thanks, Foto, I didn’t get the linking through the name.. (obviously)
Regarding FERC releicensing. What is the understanding of forest managers regarding relicensing of hydroelectric generators?
My observation is that the geographic area of the project does not extend far enough from the water to establish responsibility.
There is a need for fuels management, including reduction, to prevent the type fire that results in siltation of the reservoir. Most licenses seem to be predicated on tens of feet of elevation or tens of yards from the high water mark.
Seldom is the hydroplant tasked to pay for services rendered in fuels management.
S
Dick, could you explain more about your concern.. does it have to do with a specific FERC project?
Sharon – You might consider this a new topic, but to reply directly to the original question of “What is the understanding of forest managers regarding relicensing of hydroelectric generators?”, “an” understanding (mine) is that forest managers often support political forces promoting dam removal to favor “wild rivers” and to gain possession and control management of riparian areas. This may be more of an Eastern issue, and a position that seems “only natural” to some, but it raises an important question of social equity: do we really want to spend money removing facilities that generate carbon-free power to favor habitat for (usually, in the East, non-native) salmonids fished by a few up-scale anglers (including me) while removing flatwater habitat for warm-water species more often fished by the more “average American”? Don’t we normally think that public policy should aim at redistribution in the other direction? I know that dam removal is a tremendously complex topic, but oddly I have never heard this simple social-equity aspect raised, and it may be but one example of a more general blind spot regarding other natural resource management questions. (Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.)
Yes, I think that it is worth a separate post… do you want to write more, perhaps with specific examples and email it to me and I will post separately.. A photo might be nice also..
I don’t have much more to say – not really an expert in this area – just a nagging question in my mind of the sort that it seems like we never want to address, and am interested to see what others might have to say.
Sharon, the specific relicensing which prompted this question is New Bullard’s Bar in Yuba County, CA. The Yuba County Water Agency, YCWA is the operator.
The question was prompted by my observation at a public meeting that the map suggested the licensing would address the entire geographic area of the watershed. Someone else asked a question about the map. The response was that the project geographic area was limited to a small perimeter around the reservoir. Then the discusion went on about boat ramps and recreation. Neither fire fighting or fuels reduction was mentioned.
T
I think I have something to add here, regarding water entities. When I worked on the east side of the Tahoe NF, the Lahontan Water Board expressed concern about impacts to their water rights, and insisted that more monitoring be done in their drinking watershed. After serious wildfires totalling more than 120,000 acres, salvage logging occurred and impacts and mitigations needed documentation. I was selected to do BMP’s for many logging sites, and I decided to be as objective as possible, to the horror of my boss. One landing was located in a terrible spot, at the bottom of a gully, and the Sale Administer had the landing ripped. After a winter flood event, the entire landing was washed away. Being a temporary employee, I was not asked to return the next year, partially due to my write-ups of those BMP monitoring reports.
Your post in this link is a direct copy of an article from the Aspen Daily News. It is in violation of copyright law to use photos without permission (I am the photographer). Please remove the post immediately and in the future do not improperly use photos. http://ncfp.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/. It is also a copyright violation to completely lift an entire story. Aggregation is acceptable when linking to the original source (but never for a photo).
Chris, I apologize. The post has been removed.
If there were trailing comments, the post should be resurrected in appropriate framing, and the comments left. Maybe there we no comments.