On 12/5/2013 11:47 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:11:47 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
>>> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
>>>
>> You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
>> summer, that had to be a bit tense.
>>
>
> It was touch & go for a while.
>
I would think that there is an opportunity for prescribed burns to
reduce future threats in the area of that one reservoir which was in danger.

Has that happened, or did enough material burn naturally to reduce
future risks?

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:51:59 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> wrote:

> On 12/5/2013 11:47 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:11:47 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
> >>> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
> >>>
> >> You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
> >> summer, that had to be a bit tense.
> >>
> >
> > It was touch & go for a while.
> >
> I would think that there is an opportunity for prescribed burns to
> reduce future threats in the area of that one reservoir which was in danger.
>
> Has that happened, or did enough material burn naturally to reduce
> future risks?

It is surrounded by national forest, so they're doing whatever the
powers that be have decided is supposed to happen fires in a
national forest. I think how forests are managed is still
controversial. If they aren't letting timber companies come in to
clear cut, they will let fires in remote areas burn out naturally.
Unfortunately, the Rim Fire area was too close to Hetch Hechy,
Yosemite Valley and other populated areas to let it burn out
naturally. Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.
http://blogs.kqed.org/education/2013...-forest-fires/

http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=711
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/0...m-fire-update/
http://www.motherjones.com/environme...mite-explainer

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:
>
> Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
> Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
> skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
> haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.

You don't need to use tax dollars to let government employees play with
"controlled burns" that sometimes get out of control, cause air
pollution and waste resources. You can have private logging companies
pay to selectively harvest and thin the long overgrown forests, have no
fires to get out of control, produce no pollution and provide valuable
resources that can be used for such things as home building further
providing jobs as well.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:31:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
> > Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
> > skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
> > haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.
>
> You don't need to use tax dollars to let government employees play with
> "controlled burns" that sometimes get out of control, cause air
> pollution and waste resources. You can have private logging companies
> pay to selectively harvest and thin the long overgrown forests, have no
> fires to get out of control, produce no pollution and provide valuable
> resources that can be used for such things as home building further
> providing jobs as well.

We need more forest rangers, not private business goons raping the
land.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 12/5/2013 1:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:31:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
>>> Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
>>> skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
>>> haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.
>>
>> You don't need to use tax dollars to let government employees play with
>> "controlled burns" that sometimes get out of control, cause air
>> pollution and waste resources. You can have private logging companies
>> pay to selectively harvest and thin the long overgrown forests, have no
>> fires to get out of control, produce no pollution and provide valuable
>> resources that can be used for such things as home building further
>> providing jobs as well.
>
> We need more forest rangers, not private business goons raping the
> land.
>
We may, but in many cases the private yield growth-managed forests are a
lot healthier than our national forests.

http://www.wfpa.org/page/healthy-forests/

Washington’s private forest landowners protect their growing forests
from fire, insects, and disease, while safeguarding wildlife and water
quality

http://www.oregon.gov/odf/privatefor...tiveshfrp.aspx

Restore and enhance ecosystems and habitat for threatened and endangered
species while promoting sustainable timber harvests on working forest
lands.
Those who enter into a Permanent Easement receive 100 percent of the
appraised easement value and 100 percent of the average cost of
practices. Those who select a 10-Year Easement receive 50 percent of the
average cost of practices.
The property must be 40 acres or more of private, working forest land
that will contribute existing northern spotted owl habitat.
The participant develops a Forest Stewardship Plan and participates in a
Safe Harbor agreement for the protection of spotted owl habitat.

On 12/5/2013 12:21 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:51:59 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/2013 11:47 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:11:47 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
>>>>> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
>>>>>
>>>> You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
>>>> summer, that had to be a bit tense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was touch & go for a while.
>>>
>> I would think that there is an opportunity for prescribed burns to
>> reduce future threats in the area of that one reservoir which was in danger.
>>
>> Has that happened, or did enough material burn naturally to reduce
>> future risks?
>
> It is surrounded by national forest, so they're doing whatever the
> powers that be have decided is supposed to happen fires in a
> national forest. I think how forests are managed is still
> controversial. If they aren't letting timber companies come in to
> clear cut, they will let fires in remote areas burn out naturally.

The Yellowstone stratagem, natural but wildly unsafe also with
overcrowded forests.

> Unfortunately, the Rim Fire area was too close to Hetch Hechy,
> Yosemite Valley and other populated areas to let it burn out
> naturally. Don't expect proactive burns in this day and age of
> Republicans strangling the budget, which results in layoffs and
> skeleton staffing of National Parks. We're lucky the Republicans
> haven't been able to sell off forestry land and they still exist.

The park staffing is less an issue as they do not fight fires.

As for the national fire budget:

http://www.accuweather.com/en/featur...deple/17587645

The U.S. Forest Service has already exceeded its firefighting budget by
$178 million, as more than 100 active wildfires rage on at the start of
the season's peak.
This marks the sixth year the wildfire budget has been exceeded since 2002.
After rescissions and the national sequester, the U.S. Forest service
had $922 million available for wildfire suppression in 2013. This
included $510 million in appropriations from Congress, $113 million of
carryover from prior years and $299 million in the FLAME fund.
The 2013 budget has decreased by approximately 5 percent from 2012.

I do not believe the Republicans are "strangling the budget", any more
than I believe they created the Sequester.

> http://blogs.kqed.org/education/2013...-forest-fires/

Key quote:

"After the nation faced massive devastations from unwieldy fires such as
the Peshtigo Fire and the Great Fire of 1910, the forest service began
implementing strict policies stating that all wildfires were to be
quickly suppressed. This practice continued until the 1960s, when
policies towards fire suppression were changed as a result of new
studies that recognized wildfires as a vital process for forest
regrowth. Now, nearly a century later, many of our national forests have
become dense with growth. This increase in forest density allows
wildfires to burn at a higher speed and intensity, resulting in greater
overall devastation to the area."

We're paying the price for decades of improper management and fuel
growth, and that is not the fault of any one party.

http://perc.org/sites/default/files/...in%20Smoke.pdf

> http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=711

So this kind of answers my question about future wildfire threats,
they're still the

"Approximately 1% of total Hetch Hetchy Reservoir watershed was within
the fire perimeter, and based on initial field assessments significantly
less area has actually burned. The northern watershed, where most of
the annual inflow originates, was still outside the fire perimeter."

> http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/0...m-fire-update/
> http://www.motherjones.com/environme...mite-explainer

Good coverage, especially the NASA imagery.

On 12/5/2013 12:21 PM, sf wrote:
> I think how forests are managed is still
> controversial. If they aren't letting timber companies come in to
> clear cut, they will let fires in remote areas burn out naturally.

http://perc.org/sites/default/files/...in%20Smoke.pdf

Aside from the money that fire suppression brings into the Forest
Service, firefighting is
big business in many areas. ìA new ëfire-dependentí class of government
agencies and private
corporations has accumulated enormous power and profits from
firefightingî (Ingalsbee 2006,
223). Firefighting receives about a quarter of the Forest Serviceís
resource management funding 10
every year (Nelson 2000, 4). Local businesses and federal contractors
have come to depend on
an influx of firefighting dollars.


In sum, since fighting fire enjoys widespread support from businesses,
property owners,
Congress, and the Forest Service itself, only a small percentage of
fires are allowed to burn
unfettered on national forests. This risk-avoidance strategy is typical
of ìbureaucratic myopiaî
(Shughart 2006)óno politician or bureaucrat wants fire damage or
casualties to occur on their
watch. But suppressing fires in the present can result in greater
problems in the future. As fuels
accumulate, many forests stray further from their historical range of
variation, and fires threaten
to be more damaging and dangerous.