Requesting advice/help from the TU guys on the site

[Maurice]

GreenWeenie wrote:
I am not saying they aren't a great organization with good intentions what I am saying is they have politics just like everywhere else so don't blindly put your faith in them and think everything they are doing is the right thing. If there is a useful project that could use their help, you need to get a lot of support behind the project to make it happen - you can't just rely on the project itself to make it happen. You need to get the right people behind the project because they are the ones who can make things happen.

Ignoring the stream for a minute, if mike Richardson and the head of tu both called the pfbc about state fund or grant money available to fix a stream and both gave the exact same reasons why it should be fixed, mike gets no attention, tu gets attention. And if you want something done you've got to get the tu people behind your project and its more than just its a good project. There is money involved that exchanges hands in these projects and while some stuff is donated, companies make money off these projects.

Do you think GLeim environmental restores streams for free or do you think they make money off these projects?

It's similar to a land developer who buys a tract of farmland and wishes to rezone it and build a shopping mall. They get the right attorneys, engineers, contractors, unions, etc., behind the project and that's how it gets done. It is the same thing at tu except on a smaller and different scale but the mechanisms for getting it done are very similar.

This is all true, your observations are accurate. So what this is as it should be. I am not sure how you would expect it to work. DO you (or your company)have a competitive relationship with Gleim?

Sounds like a jealous streak more than a list of legitimate gripes.

They don't do it the way I want,
They pick the wrong streams,
They pick the wrong contractor....

Sour grapes, get over it. Or better yet, get involved and change it, influence it, invest the time those who move these projects along and see if your Utopian viewpoints have any traction.

 

[bearfisherman]

As somebody who is working on the 4th year of improvements in a master plan, I would like to throw some experiences in:

1. I am not affiliated with TU - we do not have a local chapter. We are working as a watershed association.

2. You have to go searching for funding right now. When the economy is good, finding funding is a lot easier. Now, projects usually are limited to grant funding opportunities, and these are becoming harder to get as more groups are trying to get the same pot of money.

3. Large projects with lots of backers / supporters get more funding because they have developed the network of groups necessary to make funding advantageous for grant funders. Right now, any project that can throw EBTJV into the mix has a better chance of being funded, as there is a larger pot of money from which to try and get funding due to the large numbers of organizations in this group.

4. The PFBC is not responsible for funding the projects - they are the support to get the project done. They don't have the funds necessary to cover the projects that everyone wants to do, and this is just going to get worse. The support from the Habitat Division is fantastic and necessary - work with that group on any project and you will see why. The PFBC role can be as a match for many grant opportunities - the time, planning, and work day effort that they give the project can be used to help with a match component on grant applications. My fear is that the Habitat division is going to disappear in the near future with budget cuts.

5. Any amount of funding can go a long way. We have completed 10 instream devices in last several years, and you would be amazed at the small amount of actual cash that is necessary. Build your network of supporters that can donate time/equipment/materials, and you need to find the right landowners, and when you do, lots of improvements can be made pretty quickly.

 

[GreenWeenie]

Maurice,

Read what I am saying. I am not alluding to corruption. Did I say that anywhere? No, what I said is in order for projects to get done you need to have the support of the right people pushing for the project. And some of those people whether you like it or not will only support the project if they are getting something in return.

That how businesses survive and make money and how politicians operate. Keep living in fantasyland if you think otherwise and think that all these special interest groups are doing it because that's what they love doing and money is secondary.

There is money to be made plain and simple and that doesn't mean stealing or corruption or kicks backs. And I don't have any competitive relationship with Gleim and i am not suggesting or accusing that they are doing anything wrong, all i am saying is they, like any other business, is in business to make money and if there is money available for work, they don't necessarily care if it gets allocated to the most worthwhile project and they shouldn't.

So please stop with the sour grapes retort.

Maybe, just maybe you benefit from this and don't want anyone knowing the truth of how things get done.

 

[Maurice]

Somewhere up there you said companies donate money in exchange for contracts.

I don't see why you would be surprised at how business works. You describe it like its not above board.

Damn it the people who put the effort into the project and pushed a particular project and put effort into it got the money.

Unless you are just having a Mr Obvious moment. it sounds like sour grapes. If you are happy with the situation I must have misread it.

 

[GreenWeenie]

Maurice,

Why do companies donate to politicians? To get work in return. What don't you understand about that? You really must live in fantasyland if you think otherwise. Oh yes, it is just sour grapes on my part.

Read what bearfishermen said, he's saying the same thing -get the right support if you want things to get done and I simply add that sometimes the right supporters include people who, heaven forbid, are going to make money off the project.

 

[Maurice]

I do understand it and I said I did...you are the one who seems to have trouble accepting it. If it is not OK then it must be corruption or otherwise sour grapes. Otherwise it is acceptable behavior, Pick one.

Sometimes you have to ask..."is it me or the rest of the world...."


I'm out! I gotta go buy buy some cheap groceries from a discount store with some expired labels. I cannot waste any more brain power on this. My health depends on it.
:-D

 

[GreenWeenie]

Maurice,

You have serious issues. No where did I condone nor crucify anything. The guy asked a question and I simply stated how things get done with zero comment on the right or wrong. You are the one who took it there and now attempts to pin it on me.

No sour grapes just saying how it works.

 

[Railking]

Well, that escalated quickly...

 

[mike_richardson]

my thoughts exactly railking. 😉

I appologize for not being as versed as you all in this subject. I am learning what I can, as fast as I can. I would contact Len, but when the Stony Creek funding came in it was to help both the Little Conemaugh, and Stony Creek. Well we see how much was done to the Little conemaugh with that funding. Not that is is surprising the stream within his area got attention first. So you can see why I may be a little reluctant to contact him. This is in no way a dis at SCRIP. My organization is a member of this group, and applaud all that has been done on Stony Creek.

I am in the process of learning and I appreciate all of the helpful insight. I am working with the PFBC right now. I will be getting pictures and get help with the stream assessment, from them. I may be able to get a biologist to come help out as well. I have not conducted macro studies on this stream yet, considering I just wanted to get started with the project now. It is hard to get the help when the temps are below freezing. I have a plan of action to take. If in the initial assessment we see that it is just fine and dandy the way it is, THEN GOOD, I can try and focus on another stream in the area.

1) conduct stream assesment, all necessary studies, macros, flow, shade and cover issues, buffer improvements, bank erosion areas. Apply for permits with DEP
2)figure out what improvements will be placed where
3)develope a budget to complete these improvements
4) set out to seek funding to complete the improvements, gas/oil companies, big corporations, local state representatives for support and possible grants, fund raisers and such.
5) Set up management plan of what to place where
6)develope schedule of when to conduct each improvement and decide the order of importance.
7) get public involved in improvements
8) complete improvements
9)Smile at everyone that hated on this project 😉

 

[osprey]

Mike...........#(7) Should be at the top of the list buddy , i'm not being critical , i admire your enthusiasm and wish i had your ambition. The reason i'm sayin that 7 should be 1 is that experience tells me that you almost always MUST organize any effort on any issue because bureaucrats , politicians , executives , etc, look at us in terms of numbers , volume if you will.
I didn't read the rest of this , I started where you and Mo left off , apparently discussing Len Lichvar and his involvement in the efforts on the Stoney. I posted that first part 'cause i know from my own involvement , that without the grassroots support from the GREAT folks that live , fish , hunt , canoe/kayak , picnic , f*** , etc. along the Stoneycreek , none of what the few wanted would have happened without the support of the many.
Organize first , under a name picked by a core group of folks that are 100% IN , and then build your volume. If you do it that way you will make several of the other numbers/issues go away , like fund raising for example.
I'm going to go back and read the rest now , i just had to get that in there before i forgot , it's important and the 'ol memory ain't what it used to be. I Shall Return.

 

[bikerfish]

Honestly, number one should be to clean up the problem, all the stream habitat improvement won't do siht until the main problem is fixed. Get the public educated on what is causing the problem and what is possible if it's fixed, the more on board the better, because it will cost MILLIONS.

Link to a stream near me that recieved help.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/hunting-fishing/after-remediation-forage-fish-found-in-venango-county-creek-260634/

 

[AndyP]

Mike - after all that's been said here, my only advice is to be patient and try to keep your enthusiasm. I'm a member of VFTU and to think that some our members have been actively trying to protect and improve Valley, Little Valley and West Valley Creek for over 30 years amazes me. There is a ebb and flow to volunteering. Personally, some years I'm more active and in other years not as much as I'd like to be due to work and family. Keep in mind that it's a long haul. As others have said I commend your involvement and enthusiasm. Good luck!!

 

[osprey]

biker..........The PUBLIC is what i'm talking about , the suits see us as numbers (votes) if you organize a GROUP behind an issue it's the volume of the group that gets attention. After going back and reading everything up to here , it seems like there are some personal problems that will have to be dealt with before any movement could occur on a project the size of cleaning up this creek. The watershed association mentioned in the newspaper article in the link you posted is what i'm talking about. The South Sandy Creek Watershed Association is the reason it got the attention it did.

 

[jdaddy]

AndyP wrote:
Mike - after all that's been said here, my only advice is to be patient and try to keep your enthusiasm. I'm a member of VFTU and to think that some our members have been actively trying to protect and improve Valley, Little Valley and West Valley Creek for over 30 years amazes me. There is a ebb and flow to volunteering. Personally, some years I'm more active and in other years not as much as I'd like to be due to work and family. Keep in mind that it's a long haul. As others have said I commend your involvement and enthusiasm. Good luck!!

THIS! We have worked on application, permitting, design of some class a streams in Berks county that literally took YEARS for state agencies to release approved and budgeted funds. It can be quite sickening. For example we have two projects that have been approved and waiting for release of funds for years. The funds pool is created by a township who dewaters the streams in question. They have to put a lot of money into a fund which goes specifically to projects for these two streams, yet the money has been sitting in the coffers of the agency who controls it with no real reason not to release it.

So, in other words get multiple sticks in multiple fires cause you never know how long it will take, which ones will take off and which will be extinguished.

 

[bikerfish]

does this watershed have any streams in it that support trout? I'm talking wild fish here, not truck trout. Don't mean to discourage, this is all very noble, and without people at the grass roots level, most of this type of stuff would never get done, but being realistic, a clean-up of this magnatude could very well take decades. The polution has been pouring into the watershed for decades, it's not going to be a trout stream anytime soon.
I've looked into some of the sources of this polution, and it's beyond criminal what has happened there. I don't think many folks realize the scale of the destruction. we're talking bringing a stream back from the dead, and has been dead for a long time.
That said, I wish Mike luck in taking this challenge on, but like Jdaddy said, it would be good to have other, perhaps more attainable projects in the works also.

 

[mike_richardson]

The stream improvements i am talking about arr in the upper end. The hughes borehole is below the area i am speaking of.

I imaginge a few native trout could have came down from bens creek and made residence. I had asked my fish commission contact if we could shock and see if there were any natives or potential wild trout.

I think if we can make the public see how great this stream really is they can see how they are being robbed in its lower section. I think once this stream has a few improvements to redice the stress of the fish in the summer months it could really take off. The more public that is involved the more voices for getting something done about the hughes.

 

[Gone4Day]

osprey wrote:
The South Sandy Creek Watershed Association is the reason it got the attention it did.

Not exactly.

OCTU had been working to fix the AMD on Williams run for over 20 years. They eventually got environmental and engineering studies, stream surveys etc. and developed a mitigation plan, but got turned down for funding. Even though they already had $10's of thousands in contributions and widespread support from the PFBC, PGC, DNRC, DEP, local businesses and many others, they weren't going to just give a TU chapter $2 million.

So they created the SSCWA to funnel the contributions and funding through. The watershed association only has a few officers, but by creating a separate organization dedicated to just the S. Sandy watershed, they effectively walled off the money from any other use to the satisfaction of the funding authorities. And bingo, they got a GG grant. They then combined it with additional private contributions and used it all to get matching federal funding.

Although there was plenty of attention before SSCWA ever existed, it was still necessary to achieve critical mass. But everything else you wrote I pretty much agree with. Everybody is for clean water, wild trout are just icing on the cake! 🙂

 

[jdaddy]

bikerfish wrote:
does this watershed have any streams in it that support trout? I'm talking wild fish here, not truck trout.

That said, I wish Mike luck in taking this challenge on, but like Jdaddy said, it would be good to have other, perhaps more attainable projects in the works also.

Edit above quote for brevity. Clearly I am an advocate of cold, clear water conservation. However, being just as close to the horrors of the Susquehanna, as I am to the raping of cold water streams above, I am sympathetic to both. I applaud anyone who moves to fix our countries watersheds. It's pretty easy to start at the "top" and roll down river, which obviously generally is at small stream headwaters. Certainly keeping them pure and protected is great, however we can actually have larger impacts when we look at the huge masses of nitrogen running into the Susquehanna from parking lots, development, farming, etc. However, it seems those most in tune with the problems are those who use the resources 'further upstream', thus we focus on cold water conservation in the name of trout.

 

[GreenWeenie]

$hit flows downhill. All the best downhill improvements don't accomplish anything unless you start above. You have got to address the source if you wish to fix anything.

 

[jdaddy]

GreenWeenie wrote:
$hit flows downhill. All the best downhill improvements don't accomplish anything unless you start above. You have got to address the source if you wish to fix anything.

I 100% agree with the general consensus here. However if 90% of the nitrates are introduced into a watershed in the last 5% of the stream drainage then logic, science and common sense tells you where the best attack would be. However it does not hold trout, thus certain people don't care. You can't save the world working on headwaters.