Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Cross pollination

Ken Miller writes... "...Salmon Forever has joined with the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) to develop the THP Watch Program. This program provides citizens with access to our data and research library for their comments on timber harvest plans submitted to CDF. Our input has modified many THPs and helps establish a useful administrative record should THPs be litigated...

Salmon Forever has worked closely with local groups to emphasize the vulnerability of the North Fork Mattole River...

We also serve as a scientific consultant to Voices of Humboldt County, a monthly publication of the Humboldt Watershed Council. The publication’s name comes from a video Salmon Forever and Humboldt Watershed Council co-produced in 1997..."


Now come on, Ken, One group per person really ought to be the rule...

Salmon Forever
Home / Publications / Branching Out / Fall 2000 / Salmon Forever. by Ken Miller of Salmon Forever November 1, 2000. Measuring stream velocity with an orange ...
www.treesfoundation.org/publications/article-40 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages (Trees Foundation, that's Earth First)

Groups Demand Water Board Curtail Excessive Logging: Independent ...
Michael Shellenberger, Salmon Forever, 510-525-9900 Ken Miller, Humboldt Watershed Council, 707-839-7444 Jesse Noell, Salmon Forever, 707-443-7433 ...
www.wildcalifornia.org/pressreleases/number-29 - 10k - Cached - Similar pages (wildcalifornia, that's EPIC)

Deep-Water, Industrial Port Development vs. Sustainable Future
Dr. Ken Miller President, Salmon Forever /s/ Tim McKay Executive Director, Northcoast Environmental Center /s/ Ruth Jameson Eureka Homeowners Committee ...
www.wildcalifornia.org/pages/page-168 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters - The Bay Area Coalition for ...
It's hard to believe, but the Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters is 10 years old! ... Senator Barbara Boxer's office with one of BACH's founders, Ken Miller ...
www.treesfoundation.org/affiliates/update-77 - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

15 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Note: In the interest of saving space - I deleted the post above - a copy of the North Coast Journal article 'What Lies Beneath?' You can view it at its source
    and I also posted it on the watchpaul article archive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well at least post some of the content. You seem to have no problem with space when the article supports your point of view.

    "Dioxin is one of those things most people would rather not think about, especially while biting into that grilled oyster burger at the Waterfront Cafe. That's because dioxin has been shown to affect a person's immune system and increases their risk of getting cancer. The county's business boosters don't want you to think about it either. More importantly, they don't want people outside the county, who might think of investing money or spending vacations here, to think about dioxin when thinking about Humboldt Bay."

    "Could the listing be a good thing in the short and long run, by bringing in state and federal dollars? The Reporter said this: "According to county officials, economic impacts to the area as a result of the listing might mean additional and costly scrutiny for dioxin testing for development permits and restoration activities for wetland and marsh habitats." For developers that's bad news, but for those in the area who like wetlands and marsh, that sounds as if dollars will be headed for good projects. The series says that the listing will force the regional water quality control board to initiate a plan to identify the contamination and plot a course to clean it. Maybe I'm crazy, but couldn't that be seen as a good thing?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Once again - why leave this out?"

    Your quote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wasn't intending to leave this out, actually thought it would make a good subject for a post of its own.

    What's at issue here is not whether or not dioxin is good or bad, or present or not, but that the process for listing the bay was hijacked by the predatory litigious group calling itself "Humboldt Baykeeper" for this round of lawsuits.

    It has to do with the way the listing was obtained, going in at the last minute, knowing that no one would be there to counter their claims because on all previous drafts the bay had not been included in the listings.

    It is going in at the last minute with cherrypicked data and sidestepping the rigorous process that is normally present for deciding whether or not to do this.

    The opinion piece in the NCJ is especially interesting because the author mentions donating to Baykeeper. I wonder if the author has any idea how well funded "Baykeeper" is, what the source of hte funding is, and whether or not she realizes that "Baykeeper" does not need the donation.

    It is this hijacking of the good will and high ideals of the people in this county that I find particularly offensive.

    And lastly - "Baykeeper's" own website states that "The Humboldt Bay Watershed is entering its third decade of restoration efforts,..."

    So we now need all these lawsuits because...?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since it turns out we're discussing this column here rather than in a separate post - I should add that if it were not for what I have discovered in the past 4 years, I, like Marcy Burstiner, would have been a believer in "Baykeeper."

    I agree with her that "The whole point of in-depth reporting is to get at all sides of a controversy so that the reader comes away with a good understanding of a complex problem."

    And I believe that we the readers, who depend upon the news media for truthful information that we can use, want them to report "both sides with balance and perspective."

    ReplyDelete
  7. "costly scrutiny for dioxin testing for development permits and restoration activities for wetland and marsh habitats."

    Understand that means costly testing for restoration activities and wetland and marsh habitats. This means added cost to restoration which could translate to less restoration. Just ask the Arcata Environmental Services Department who brought up this point.

    Also Baykeeper did not "go in at the last minute". BK submitted their argument for listing at least eight months before the listing happened. It is the Water Board that made the decision at the last minute. BK was just tenacious in their effort to have their opinion heard. And the Water Board didn't notify any of the related agencies of the information submitted by BK and so there was no response. Also the data was not "cherry picked". All the data that was available to BK was referenced in their request to be listed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder if Peter Douglas or John Wooly knew about BK's submission for 8 months and just forgot to let anyone know ? Oystres are safe to eat,crabs too. I wonder if John Wooley knew that while he feasted at the Oyster Festiful? Slimmy,slimmy,slimmy!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why or how would they know that? What a silly idea.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes,what a silly idea. No good old boys,back room deals here. What a silly idea.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You know there is no motivation for any collusion. There's no big money, no advancement in personal careers, no shared social agendas,just pure compassion for shell fish.

    ReplyDelete
  12. compassion for shell fish ? well cut off my legs and call me shorty.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, 9:58, this is what you are dealing with...
    "...There is no question that citizen enforcement has played an important role in the implementation of the Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. Congress envisioned that the role of the citizen lawsuit would be to supplement, not supplant, the primary enforcement function of the States and the federal government. In recent years in California, however, we have seen a cottage industry develop in which plaintiffs’ attorneys file citizen suit after citizen suit against numerous local agencies without regard to the magnitude or the environmental impact of the alleged violations, and despite the fact that communities may already be taking steps to rectify their situations, either voluntarily or because the State or USEPA has already undertaken administrative enforcement action.

    The Clean Water Act imposes strict liability upon regulated entities. Local public agencies are required to conduct thousands of analytical tests each year, so it is not surprising that there may be a few exceedances. The results must be reported in the form of public records. Thus, establishing a Clean Water Act case is generally very simple. And no matter how strong a showing the local agency can make that it is doing everything it can to comply with its permit and protect water quality, proof of even a handful of violations over a five year period is sufficient to render the plaintiff a “prevailing party” entitled to payments of attorneys fees and costs. As local agencies strive to comply with ever changing, increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, every violation, however minor, is accompanied by the specter of possible administrative enforcement and citizen litigation..."

    Speech to the SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT - COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
    U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    WASHINGTON, DC

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is true. But it has little to do with the subject of the 303(d) listing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes but Shorty has some unneeded shoes to sell.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.