Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    5,860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,954
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,537
    Thanked in
    968 Posts
    Chats
    1921
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.

    River restoration video on SBR project

    Tim Flagler of Tightline Productions (Tightline Productions) made a great video about the efforts to restore the South Branch Raritan last year behind the Raritan Inn. He did a great job and I don't just say that because I'm in it

    Here's the link:

    Stream Restoration Project on Vimeo


    Similar Threads:
    A sinking fly is closer to Hell - ​Unknown

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Rusty Spinner For This Useful Post:

    Flytrap (08-22-2013), Fredy (09-29-2013), GARYB (08-20-2013), Lonewolve (08-20-2013), NJDrew (08-23-2013), Oliver10 (08-21-2013)

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    5,860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,954
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,537
    Thanked in
    968 Posts
    Chats
    1921
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts


    Re: River restoration video on SBR project

    I'm a bit surprised Jaybird hasn't commented. He still has a huge issue with me having been involved with this SBR private water project according to his post on another blog site. You should all know that zero TU funds were spent on this project. I acted as a free, outside consultant that brought the federal funder, landowner, and my river restoration contractor together as federal funds are available (only) for private lands restoration work under the Farm Bill. We can sometimes find creative ways to bring those Farm Bill funds to bear on public projects. One good example is a planned river channel restoration downstream of the Point Mountain TCA next year (if funds come through as they should). A non-profit conservation partner of TU's now has a managerial contract with the Division of F&W on Division (public) land and they can hold the Farm Bill funds for this project. TU will be bringing in additional funds to that project, but it is the river we focus our efforts on here in NJ and those funds are to cover survey and design costs along with moving the 200+ donated boulders to sites next to the river just before we start the work.

    If you are a TU member, you should know that exactly $0 of your dues funds my salary, my overhead, or my projects. I am 100% grant funded with grants I write to cover all of my expenditures including salary and benefits. You may help pay for senior and support staff and our leased office in Arlington, VA, but conservation staff are self-funded via grants and private donations.

    Also, the notion that I work simply to provide TU members with fishing access or better fishing is a false one. My job is to protect and restore a river and its tributaries. Those waters don't get to decide if they lay on public land or private land or both. We restore and protect as needed and the overall health of the river improves as a direct result. We are not a fishing club but rather the leading coldwater conservation organization that happens to be comprised of mostly anglers. I think that distinction sometimes gets lost with some folks. But it is an important one to make.

    A sinking fly is closer to Hell - ​Unknown

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Rusty Spinner For This Useful Post:

    Fredy (09-29-2013)

  5. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    1060 West Addison, Chicago....
    Posts
    4,160
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,098
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    965
    Thanked in
    644 Posts
    Chats
    4391
    Groans
    27
    Groaned 12 Times in 12 Posts


    Re: River restoration video on SBR project

    I am just curious as to why the funds can't be used for public lands? Just silly government crap?

    "I'm not out on the river to win." -Kieth Rutherford

  6. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hackettstown, NJ
    Posts
    2,565
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    56
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    667
    Thanked in
    384 Posts
    Chats
    1
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 6 Times in 6 Posts


    Re: River restoration video on SBR project

    The "color of money" stuff sure gets weird sometimes. Farm Bill is one pot of money; public lands stuff is another. The theory is that it keeps people honest and use the money as intended - but it sure leads to a lot of games. When money is involved, people think of creative ways to get their hands on it.


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to JeffK For This Useful Post:

    lightenup (08-24-2013)

  8. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    5,860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,954
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,537
    Thanked in
    968 Posts
    Chats
    1921
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts


    Re: River restoration video on SBR project

    Quote Originally Posted by lightenup View Post
    I am just curious as to why the funds can't be used for public lands? Just silly government crap?
    In the previous Farm Bills, typically conservation funds were allocated as 40% public and 60% private. The last time they passed a Farm Bill over 6 years ago (a 5 year bill, FYI), one Senator from I'm not sure which state used his key vote to leverage a pet project but would only vote for the bill if they stripped all the public lands funding out. And so it was. But we can sometimes use those funds in certain situations and I pursue them whenever I can. The Cliffdale Inn property on the upper Musky in Mansfield is owned by a land conservancy and held in public trust (public access for all). But as a landowner they were qualified to receive what was then a WHIP (wildlife habitat incentive program) grant for the river channel restoration along with some native tree and shrub plantings. In that case, the public has full fishing access. Another property I worked on a few river miles downstream was private land. All 3 landowners own the river bed in that area, but all allow fishing (upstream owner needs to be asked and will give permission for C&R anglers). So they were all eligible under the Farm Bill and we were lucky to work with 3 nice landowners that allow public access if we don't abuse the privilege.

    Even if they did not allow public access, I still would have performed that private land project on 7/10 mile of river because the river had been channelized prior to 1930 and was in rough shape over most of that stretch and down onto adjacent downstream state land. Now, in addition to a beautiful stretch of publicly accessible private land, the river on state land below benefits from better flows and less sedimentation in addition to increased insect life and that remains public WMA land. A win-win in most people's book.

    A sinking fly is closer to Hell - ​Unknown

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Rusty Spinner For This Useful Post:

    lightenup (08-24-2013)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Participants: 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •