Unassessed wild trout stream surveys-update-2014

[RLeep2]

>>Whut!?!????

So you are saying that the Pols and extraction interests are the ones driving the assessment and generation of a list that impedes their progress and profitability?>>

I don't see any "Whut" here.

I'm confident that if you think it through, you won't see any "Whut" either.

I mean, let's say I'm the VP of site selection for TrashisUS, Inc. and I'm looking for a suitable location for a new landfill. Before I start buying up properties and making other project related expenditures, it would be smart for me to know as much as possible about potential environmental conflicts that might stop my project.

I think this is the sense in which the extraction (or whatever...) industries could be said at least partially be "driving" the unassessed waters initiative.

I used the example of a landfill because I think it was a proposed landfill project a couple decades ago that resulted in legislation mandating more "daylight" and accessibility for things like lists of wild trout streams.

At least that is what I recall...

 

[bikerfish]

Maurice wrote:

Chaz wrote:
That's exactly why the program exists, the pols and their supporting extraction industries have asked where these stream are and want them assessed. I'm sure there will be challenges, but that's what the process is for, resolving conflicts.

Whut!?!????

So you are saying that the Pols and extraction interests are the ones driving the assessment and generation of a list that impedes their progress and profitability?

The Pols on behalf of the extraction industry have fought to repeal clean water standards(acts). At least in my world they have.

This! :-(

 

[Chaz]

It's started with some streams being on the wild trout list or Class A list having never been assessed, and the more or less demanded that they be removed from the list until they could be assessed. There were other questions regarding streams particularly near coal mines and lease sites, about whether there were wild trout in those streams, many were un-assessed. PFBC was asked to assess those streams.

 

[geebee]

great list.

interesting to see the large number of tribs to the brandywine contain wild trout.

 

[Maurice]

RLeep2 wrote:
>>Whut!?!????

So you are saying that the Pols and extraction interests are the ones driving the assessment and generation of a list that impedes their progress and profitability?>>

I don't see any "Whut" here.

I'm confident that if you think it through, you won't see any "Whut" either.

I mean, let's say I'm the VP of site selection for TrashisUS, Inc. and I'm looking for a suitable location for a new landfill. Before I start buying up properties and making other project related expenditures, it would be smart for me to know as much as possible about potential environmental conflicts that might stop my project.

I think this is the sense in which the extraction (or whatever...) industries could be said at least partially be "driving" the unassessed waters initiative.

I used the example of a landfill because I think it was a proposed landfill project a couple decades ago that resulted in legislation mandating more "daylight" and accessibility for things like lists of wild trout streams.

At least that is what I recall...

Perhaps this is why the Natty Gas explosion in PA was ramrodded prior to the Unassessed streams program.

If your theory were true, it wouldn't have started only three years ago when the F&BC and anyone else who cared about water were stepping and fetching to find a way to slow down the runaway train we call Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction.

So now thats their hand is plainly in the cookie jar...they might as well say, Hey mind if I have a cookie?

 

[Chaz]

Maurice wrote:

RLeep2 wrote:
>>Whut!?!????

So you are saying that the Pols and extraction interests are the ones driving the assessment and generation of a list that impedes their progress and profitability?>>

I don't see any "Whut" here.

I'm confident that if you think it through, you won't see any "Whut" either.

I mean, let's say I'm the VP of site selection for TrashisUS, Inc. and I'm looking for a suitable location for a new landfill. Before I start buying up properties and making other project related expenditures, it would be smart for me to know as much as possible about potential environmental conflicts that might stop my project.

I think this is the sense in which the extraction (or whatever...) industries could be said at least partially be "driving" the unassessed waters initiative.

I used the example of a landfill because I think it was a proposed landfill project a couple decades ago that resulted in legislation mandating more "daylight" and accessibility for things like lists of wild trout streams.

At least that is what I recall...

Perhaps this is why the Natty Gas explosion in PA was ramrodded prior to the Unassessed streams program.

If your theory were true, it wouldn't have started only three years ago when the F&BC and anyone else who cared about water were stepping and fetching to find a way to slow down the runaway train we call Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction.

So now thats their hand is plainly in the cookie jar...they might as well say, Hey mind if I have a cookie?

People are always going to believe what they want to believe, and you are no exception.
I didn't say the extraction people were driving this, I only said they demanded that un-assessed waters be removed from the list, there were Approx. 30 streams on the Class A list that weren't assessed, and the extractions folks got their panties in a wad about it and said we want them off the list.
PFBC came to the Trout Management Committee and said this is what's happening, we need folks on the ground to tell us if these trout are here, then we'll assess the streams. Not exact words, but it makes the point.
The un-assessed streams program was a few years old by then. From the beginning the Oil and Gas bags have been at the forefront questioning everything. PA Trout Unlimited, PFBC, DCNR, PGC, and DEP have responded.

 

[Cold]

I'd love to see this backfire on the gas companies.

They see 30 streams on the list that aren't assessed and demand removal or assessment. In the process, a large-scale assessment reveals that not only to a vast majority of those 30 stay on the list, but 2-300 new streams get added to it.

 

[Maurice]

Chaz,

My initial response to you was to this quote

That's exactly why the program exists, the pols and their supporting extraction industries have asked where these stream are and want them assessed. I'm sure there will be challenges, but that's what the process is for, resolving conflicts.

I must have misunderstood the motive of your message. Meaning that it appeared to me that you indicated the Pols and Supporting Extraction Industry requested this program begin which would be against their best interest if protected streams are found. In fact your explanation below

Chaz wrote: I didn't say the extraction people were driving this, I only said they demanded that un-assessed waters be removed from the list, there were Approx. 30 streams on the Class A list that weren't assessed, and the extractions folks got their panties in a wad about it and said we want them off the list.

Thats quite a different characterization of the situation than your original statement. Don't you think? This characterization I agree with and would not have responded the way I did had you said this the first time.

Maurice

 

[troutbert]

All of these issues boil down simply to 3 steps:

1) What is the problem? (including all relevant details)

2) What should be done about it?

3) Then doing it.