The Forest Service Policy on Felling Trees to Prevent Turbulence at Wind Farms in Forests.

[NNadir]

And you thought that the purpose of the forest service was about, um, trees...

1. Only Limited Felling Licences (LFL) should be applied for and will be issued for wind
farms – no General Felling Licences (GFL) will be granted. Two LFLs must be applied for
– 1) to cover the turbine bases, the roads, buildings, etc; 2) to cover the area on which
‘turbulence felling’ will take place.
Turbulence felling is deemed to be felling in the vicinity of the turbines. The purpose of
such felling is to avoid turbulence which can be created by the forest canopy and which
can affect the performance and efficiency of the turbines. Turbulence felling may be
allowed in certain cases, at the discretion of the Minister and subject to replanting
requirements as outlined at (7) below.

2. In line with general Forest Service policy, where grant-aided forestry is to be used for
wind farm development, any grants and premiums that were paid by the Forest Service
in respect of the areas felled for the turbine bases, roads, and infrastructure must be
refunded. (The refunding of grants applies to the areas licensed under LFL “1” above.)

3. The wind farm developer should, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),
report on the potential loss of soil and biomass CO2 and the reduction in productivity of
the forest area associated with different wind farm/forestry management/landscape
plans.

It is normal practice in cases of wind farm projects for the developer to carry out an
environmental impact assessment as part of the planning permission process. EIA’s
undertaken must include an assessment of the impact of any tree felling/replanting
proposals on the site and the Forest Service should be consulted in this regard. The
assessment should also address any environmental issues that may arise because of
the level of felling/replanting operations proposed such as stability of the site, danger to
water quality, landscape issues, danger to habitats, etc.

Now that they clarified that, I, um, feel better, um, well, um, sort of...

I still kind of like trees. Maybe they stick those stupid little green branches on the turbine poles like they do on cell phone towers...

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/felling/09Oct2FellingPolicyforWindFarmsforWebsite.pdf">Forest Service Policy on the Granting of Felling Licences for Wind Farm Development

The felled trees, of course, offer a wonderful opportunity to convert wood into PM10 carcinogenic particles in "renewable" wood fired electricity plants.

[wtmusic]

1. A good-sized tree sequesters the amount of CO2 an average person creates

so cut down that bastard, and release its already-sequestered CO2 while you're at it. So we can build windmills to keep from burning coal, and creating CO2.

Clusterf*ck.

[Robb]

2. And fish generally prefer wind power to hydro.

Complex solutions tend to bring further problems. Using electricity more efficiently is too simple.

[sandnsea]

3. Which forest is developing a wind farm? n/t

[PufPuf23]

4. Do you realize this policy is for Ireland and not the US Forest Service

for federal lands or state agency for state and private lands?

I get the point that you do not favor wood-fired energy and wildland vegetation management in general.

[NNadir]

5. I couldn't care less.

It's not like US forest wind farms in forests don't have roads and clear cuts associated with them.

Here, have a picture of what's going on in North Carolina:



http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/">Keepers of the Blue Ridge.

[PufPuf23]

6. I agree with you and the link about wind energy in general

The Blue Ridge link is a good summary about wind energy.

I would be shocked if a project like that photo would be approved anywhere on National Forest lands in 2010 (or since the Reagan/Bush I era in general).

Wind energy farms aree usually ugly, can impact wildlife particularly migratory birds, and have a poor performance record despite public subsidies.

My comments were about the misleading OP subject that appeared to be about the US Forest Service (mostly) and what I interpretted as implied broad brush conclusions regarding wood energy and forest management (that I am not interested in debating).

[Dogmudgeon]

7. The US Forest Service encourages industrial wind development on public lands, too

Sad but true.

http://www.windaction.org/news/14904">RELEASE: Wind turbines planned for Green Mountain National Forest

In what could be a national precedent, the Vermont Public Service Board is reviewing a plan to build 17 industrial wind turbines on more than 80 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest. Known as Deerfield Wind, the turbine project would be located along a prominent ridgeline in the towns of Searsburg and Readsboro, Vermont. ...Deerfield Wind would be the first industrial wind-energy facility in a national forest anywhere in the country ...The Green Mountain National Forest is one of only two national forests in New England. The U.S. Forest Service has designated nearly 20,000 acres at 37 sites within the Green Mountain National Forest as "potentially both viable and suitable" for wind power development. Recently, a proposal for a second industrial wind-energy facility within the Green Mountain National Forest was initiated.

March 28, 2008 by Save Vermont Ridgelines

In National Precedent, Industrial Wind Turbines Planned in Tourist Mecca, Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont

In what could be a national precedent, the Vermont Public Service Board is reviewing a plan to build 17 industrial wind turbines on more than 80 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest. Known as Deerfield Wind, the turbine project would be located along a prominent ridgeline in the towns of Searsburg and Readsboro, Vermont.

Deerfield Wind would be the first industrial wind-energy facility in a national forest anywhere in the country, and it could be the first of many in the Green Mountain National Forest. The Green Mountain National Forest is one of only two national forests in New England. The U.S. Forest Service has designated nearly 20,000 acres at 37 sites within the Green Mountain National Forest as "potentially both viable and suitable" for wind power development. Recently, a proposal for a second industrial wind-energy facility within the Green Mountain National Forest was initiated.

The industrial wind turbines proposed in the Green Mountain National Forest will be 410 feet tall, or the equivalent of 41-story skyscrapers. They will require five miles of access roads cut through the forest, up to 38 feet wide not including sideline clearing (which would make them wider than any other town road), corridors for transmission lines, an electric substation, and constantly flashing warning lights. The largest bear habitat in Vermont will be irreparably harmed. The area will be closed for recreation by hikers, snowmobilers, and hunters. In the 1990s, the Sierra Club and other organizations sued the U.S. Forest Service successfully to prevent logging in part of the remote area now being considered for this industrial wind-energy facility.

"Vermont already gets most of its electricity from clean energy sources. We don't need these wind turbines at the expense of our state's wilderness," said Gerry DeGray, president of Save Vermont Ridgelines. "Tourists come to Vermont to admire our spectacular mountains, our beautiful unbroken ridgelines, our black night skies, not industrial structures littering the landscape," he added.

Save Vermont Ridgelines is a group formed by local residents to fight construction of industrial wind turbines in the national forest. The company planning to build the turbines is PPM Energy, a subsidiary of Iberdrola, and one of the largest wind developers in the country.

"We think PPM targeted this area because we're a small, struggling community, and they figured we couldn't muster the resources to fight back," explained Jeanette Lee, a board member of Save Vermont Ridgelines. "Why should we accept these massive wind turbines in our national forest so that people elsewhere can feel virtuous about supporting wind power?"

Save Vermont Ridgelines is an intervener in the Vermont Public Service Board review of PPM Energy's Deerfield Wind proposal. Interveners in favor of the industrialization of the national forest are the Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Public Interest Research Group. A decision by the state agency is expected later this year.

If the Vermont Public Service Board approves Deerfield Wind, the U.S. Forest Service will then review the proposal for development in the Green Mountain National Forest.

For more information and ways in which you can help, visit Save Vermont Ridgelines's website at www.clearskyvt.org. (NOTE: web link is now owned by spammer.)

# # #

Wind energy has tremendous potential. Sadly, it seems to have embarked in a massive clusterfuck instead of making the effort to avoid environmental and human damage.

--d!

[PufPuf23]

9. "Deerfield Wind would be the first industrial wind-energy facility

in a national forest anywhere in the country"

So yes I am surprised (and disappointed) in this "national precedent".

I disapprove(d) of Obama's choices for Dept of Agriculture (Vilsack) and Interior (Salazar)-- the agencies that manage most federal land.

I live (retired but looking like I will need to go back to work despite medical problems) on an inholding in a National Forest in California.

The Obama administration gave a $4.5 million biomass energy grant to private industry locally that I think is poorly allocated funds. The Obama admin Fall 2009 sold the largest timber sale (actually more timber in one sale than had been sold on this Ranger District since 1991 in total) that was shut done by Indian and environmental protester's (and their attorneys') less than a week after work started because the contract issued and implementation did not coincide with the EIS. Plus the timber was sold for a pittance given the economy.

In general, I support some biomass energy. I also have similar support for the timber sales in concept as the intent is to reduce fire hazard in older (30 year plus) plantations from clearcuts from the 50s to 70s and building shaded fuel breaks on roads and ridges.

In both instances, the projects and monies were poorly conceived and spent because of bureaucratic rush to do something and lack of skill and knowledge base by line staff. Both were giveaways to private out of area corporate interests.

[joshcryer]

10. Holy fucking shit this is mindboggling insane.

My god.

[wtmusic]

11. No doubt some of the hypocritical morons who campaigned against Vermont Yankee

are trying to save Vermont's ridgelines now (unless, of course, they're reading by candlelight and washing their clothes by hand).

Teh stupid...it hurts. :banghead:

[jpak]

12. LOLOLOL!!!! Don't let the FACTS get in the way of a good sickfuck rant!

:rofl:

[Kolesar]

8. Wow, two complete sentences in that whiney original post...eom