Air Cascadia

Coming Soon

 

Hosted by

Episode Archive

Air Cascadia on 12/04/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Thu, 12/04/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 12/02/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Tue, 12/02/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 12/01/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Mon, 12/01/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 11/26/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Wed, 11/26/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 11/25/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Tue, 11/25/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 11/24/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Mon, 11/24/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 11/21/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Fri, 11/21/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 11/20/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Thu, 11/20/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 11/19/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Wed, 11/19/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Air Cascadia on 11/18/14

Program: 
Air Cascadia
Air date: 
Tue, 11/18/2014 - 10:00am - 10:15am
Short Description: 
Local News

Audio

Umatilla Activism &, Rising Tide: a 'pro-Pain' in Charlie Hales Money Train

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Thu, 04/23/2015




DATE \@ "MMMM d, y 'AM/PMt' h:mm AM/PM" April 7, 2015 at 9:57 AM Mark Teply Cramer Fish Sciences Project Manager 4405 7th Ave SE, Suite 306 Lacey, WA 98503 nfnc_public@fishsciences.net Re: Comments on North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project Dear Mark, Thank you for providing me the opportunity to comment on the North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project (NFMC). I also want to thank you for your prompt reply to my request for the Specialist’s Reports. The pre-decisional Environmental Assessment (EA) findings of No Significant Effects for the NFMC Proposed Action, Alternative (Alt) B and Alternative C are not supported by the documentation in the EA and the Specialist’s Reports. The EA finds that several issues are “outside the project scope,” or are dealt with in other documents that should be part of the environmental analysis and fully documented in the EA. GRAZING The EA does not provide any site specific information regarding the grazing impacts to the affected streams in the Project Area (PA). It states that the effect of current grazing allotments on water quality and riparian habitat are addressed in a separate grazing allotment plan. The name of the plan is not mentioned. Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 What is the name and date of the plan, and what grazing allotments does it cover? In a seemingly contrary move, the EA finds it necessary to discuss protections from potential adverse effects to the grazing allotment from the proposed timber sale and offers enhancements such as creating up to 200 acres of openings and proposes planting them with native grass to provide more grazing area for the existing range permit. Are these new openings factored in the environmental effects analysis? Does this move the area closer to the Historic Range of Variability as expressed in the purpose and need? Have the cattle had any adverse effect on water quality and riparian habitat in the Project Area? When was the latest monitoring of site specific effects of cattle on the water and riparian resources in the PA? I could not find this information in the EA or the Specialist’s Reports. Alt B proposes to construct an additional 30.8 miles of new temporary road in addition to the already 65 miles of Forest Service (FS) and unauthorized roads in the PA. The project also proposes to increase the amount of openings by conducting shelterwood and commercial thinning in the PA. These actions can make it easier for cattle to access riparian habitat and streams which can result in additional adverse impacts to water quality and the fishery in the PA. The grazing issue is significant and should be fully examined in the EA. What stream segment(s) in the Project Area have a TMDL due to excess coliform bacteria? Are the grazing allotment cattle contributing to the 303(d) status? This information should be provided in the EA. CLIMATE CHANGE Deforestation is linked to climate change. The EA states the impact on climate change from the NFMC Project is insignificant. The idea of cumulative effects is to consider those things that might seen insignificant but when added to other similar actions can have a significant effect. What would the CNF consider a significant amount of logging activities that would contribute to climate change? Given the EA’s way of dealing with this issue, it could excuse all particular logging activities wherever and whenever from being considered as a contributor to climate change. The effects of deforestation on climate change should be fully considered in this EA. A to Z EXPERIMENT The EA avoids discussing the “elephant in the room.” In a precedent setting move, the Forest Service has granted Vaagen Brothers Lumber Company (Vaggen), a for profit timber company, broad and sweeping powers that includes designing the A to Z Projects, doing the environmental analysis, writing the EA, deciding where, how, and how much to log, where Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 and how many roads need to be constructed and just about everything else associated with a Forest Service timber sale except make the final decision. The A to Z Projects include the upcoming Middle and South Fork Mill Creek, Onion and Little Twin Projects. While Vaagen Brothers Lumber Company itself does not have the expertise to do everything associated with NFMC Project, they have hired specialists to do what is necessary to implement the Project. It appears that Vaggen’s role is similar to a general contractor who is responsible for the work of the subcontractors. The respective missions of the FS and the for profit Vaagen Lumber Company are different and could influence the outcome of the financial and environmental impacts of the sale. It is doubtful that the FS is going choose the No Action alternative, or significantly alter the Project since Vaagen, a member of the local community and the Northeast Washington Forest Coalition, bid one million dollars to participate in this experiment. By having Vaggen responsible for most of the work associated with timber sale planning and management, it provides the opportunity for the Colville National Forest (CNF) to reach its timber target. The CNF claims it cannot currently do so because of budget and staff reductions. This is a significant action and needs to be disclosed and fully discussed in the EA.The fact that the Proposed Action calls for a very large timber sale with an inordinately large amount of road construction could be consistent with the needs of a for-profit timber corporation. Vaagen needs to have a sale that offers a sufficient volume of timber to cover its bid price, the costs associated with the project, and make a profit. The public can expect large timber sales if this experiment is continued to other timber sales. This is a national forest issue and the public throughout the country needs to know of this experiment and how it can affect the environmental outcome. The financial aspect of this experiment also needs to be fully disclosed. Does the FS expect this to be below cost or profitable project for the agency? WATER QUALITY & FISHERY Critical information, which can be found only in the Specialists Reports, are not and should be presented in the EA. This is one example of many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations that can found throughout the EA. The hydrology and fish sections of the EA omit information necessary for the public to make an informed decision. What follows are just a couple of examples. One would have to go to the Fishery Specialist’s Report to find out that in 6.5 miles of streams surveyed that are currently classified as fish bearing, only 19 fish were sampled and only one westslope cutthroat trout was found (Fishery Specialist’s Report p.6). The gravity of this situation needs to be presented in the EA. There was no mention of bull Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 trout. Is there bull trout habitat in the Project Area? The EA also omits information regarding the fact that the WEPP and WEPP FuME models are within +/- 50% of predicted values. According to the NFMC A to Z Project Hydrology Specialist Report, the WEPP road model and WEPP FuME are used to estimate sediment production. According to the Hydrology Specialist Report, p.17, “The documentation for the WEPP:Road model indicates that sediment delivery estimates are within +/- 50% of predicted values (Elliott et al. 1999). As a result, and like for the WEPP:FuME estimates, model-predicted sediment delivery values are best used to compare relative differences between alternatives and modeling scenarios. Error estimates for the average annual sediment load are not provided by the WFPB watershed analysis manual (WFPB 2011).” These models and their limitations should be, but are not referred to, in the EA. These models are used to predict sediment levels throughout the EA. It is unreasonable to put so much weight on these models given the wide range of confidence levels. The EA places a lot of emphasis on these figures without letting the public know that the figures are within +/- 50% of predicted values. How accurate are the predictions of a increase in sediment of 63% for duration of logging activities, a decrease of 1 percent in the short term, and a 65% decrease in the long term as predicted for Alt. B? The CNF should realize that logging and road construction are not surgical strikes. Do these figures include the sediment increases during Rain on Snow (ROS) events, lack of road maintenance and other site specific sediment producing activities on Forest Service and non-Forest Service managed ground in the project area? The EA at p. 64 states that there is continued erosion from existing roads. When were these roads constructed? The EA relies heavily on models in its effects analysis due to a paucity of on the ground, scientifically credible, site specific quantitative monitoring information. The CNF has not demonstrated that it has an adequate site specific monitoring program and consequently is out of compliance with the Colville National Forest Plan. Failure to follow the monitoring requirements makes it impossible for the CNF to determine the accuracy of its predictions of the environmental impacts of other timber sales. That information can be applied to proposed timber sales. Much is predicated on continued maintenance of new and existing roads after the project is over. Is that realistic given the reduced CNF budget and considering the poor condition of many existing roads and many impaired culverts? What percent of existing roads on CNF receive significant yearly maintenance? How many miles of CNF road received maintenance in FY 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015. Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 The EA lacks sufficient site specific watershed analysis for each of the affected stream drainages for the public to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts. Is there significant bedload deposition, point and mid-channel bars, and adverse effects from cattle in the affected stream segments? It does mention that the streams fall short of INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMO) for width depth ratio, fine sediment, stream bank angle and large woody debris. The EA does not adequately discuss the causes and the significance of not meeting the RMO. How long will the affected streams remain impaired and how will these problems effect the fishery in the short and long term? What are the existing impacts to the fishery in each of the affected streams? The EA states that current sediment levels in project area streams are 23%. What methodology was used to make that assessment? The EA does not describe the composition of the sediment—what type of materials are eroding and accumulating in the streams? The EA does not adequately address the short and long term significance of this amount of sediment deposition. What are the site specific recorded levels of sediment, fine and bedload, for each of the affected streams? What is the significance of these levels? What is the significance of the predicted increases in sediment production in each of the affected streams in the project area? How are the affected streams dealing with accumulated sediment? How long will it take for these streams to recover and meet the RMO’s given the increase in water yield and additional sediment that will be generated by the 30.8 miles of proposed new temporary road construction, logging and cattle intrusion? Road construction results in sediment; decommissioning the temporary roads adds another pulse of sediment. The EA does not describe the elements proposed road decommissioning. Are these applicable to all decommissioned roads? What is involved in decommissioning roads? RAIN ON SNOW (ROS) Much of the logging activity takes place in areas susceptible to ROS. The EA does not use the best available science to determine the frequency, water yield, impacts, duration and other characteristics associated with ROS. Nor does the EA adequately disclose this information. The timber sale proposes to build an additional 30.8 miles of road in addition to the existing 65 miles of road in the project area. The EA proposes 1,741 acres of shelterwood logging (avg. 75% of trees >7 inches dbh will be cut along with many trees under 7 inches) and 2,277 acres of commercial thinning (removing an avg. of 50% of the trees). The proposed logging will change large areas from mature forest canopy to intermediate forest canopy category. The EA fails to reveal what coefficients will be used for site specific areas to evaluate the susceptibility and intensity of a ROS event. Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 The EA does not adequately disclose the effects of ROS events on site specific drainages that have varying amounts and types of logging, road density, spacial and other characteristics that influence a ROS event. What is the existing road density and the road density post logging/road construction in the PA? How does the CNF Forest Plan deal with road density? The EA does not compute Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA). Proposed roads and logging create a large additional amount of openings in the Project Area which could significantly effect water quality, quantity and fish habitat. How many ECAs will be created by the proposed timber sale? What is the total amount of ECAs in the North Fork Mill Creek PA? The Hydrology Specialist’s report, Figure 19, represents the mean daily peak flows for the North Fork Mill Creek. What date is being represented by that graph? One point in time is not an adequate means of evaluation. The use of “mean daily peak flows” is not a fair representation of flow levels. The models used to evaluate the amount of ROS flows and its impacts are no substitute for daily recording of stream flows from instream gauges on the North Fork Mill Creek. There is no longer an instream gauge on the North Fork Mill Creek. The inadequate monitoring of ROS events undercuts the conclusions regarding effects of ROS events. INSECTS AND DISEASE One of the justifications for the A to Z project is to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease in the PA. Are the current levels of insects and disease beyond those found in a normally functioning forest? Are they trending beyond normal levels? Is there data from site specific surveys conducted in the PA to determine the current levels of insects and disease and it trends? What best available science was used to determine that the proposed logging will “improve” the current situation. FIRE A Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action is to “reduce the threat of severe wildfire.” What is the basis for the assumption in the EA that the PA is ripe for a severe wildfire? The EA assumes in Alt A that without this project the chances for a severe wildfire will occur with extreme effects is increased. There are many examples of wildfires that burn in a mosaic fashion leaving a naturally functioning forest without having a significant effect on soils, water quality or wildlife. Fire is an important aspect of a naturally functioning forest. The proposed logging will significantly open up the area and reduce the amount of existing mature forest. These logged areas will more likely be drier, warmer, susceptible to increases in wind and will generate more ground fuels than currently exist. All these characteristics have the potential to increase the risk and severity of a wildfire. The EA Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 does not adequately discuss these increased risks. The EA also states that it will leave a lot of fine material on the ground to increase the nutrient level. What will keep the fines from burning up, especially in the areas that will be broadcast burned? The slash generated by the logging, pre commercial thinning and road construction also increases the risk and intensity of wildfire. The proposed action alternatives do not make the PA fireproof. The issue of wildfire is controversial. There are reports by credible scientists who dispute that logging significantly reduces the risk and intensity of wildfire. None of these opposing views are presented in the EA. The EA fails in its obligation to use the best available science in its analysis. The EA needs to factor the possibility of wildfire and its effects in all the action alternatives. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The EA needs to consider the cumulative effects on Mill Creek since another large timber sale, Middle and South Forks Mill Creek A to Z Project is to be implemented in the foreseeable future. These creeks along with the North Fork Mill Creek drain into Mill Creek and could have significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects on Mill Creek. The EA lacks a sufficient and credible cumulative effects analysis because it does not adequately consider the past, present and site specific future activities on non Forest Service managed land in the project area. These activities need to be more carefully considered in all the cumulative effects analysis discussed in the EA. The EA relies on unreliable models to predict the effects of the proposed project because the CNF has not had a sufficient, scientifically credible quantitative monitoring program to determine the reliability of the EA’s predictions on past timber sales as required in the CNF Forest Plan. Is there an implementation and effects monitoring regime proposed for this project? If so, what are the specific elements of the monitoring plan? It is hard to believe that 30.8 miles of road and 2.2 miles of road realignment plus all the ground skidding, slash piling, etc from previous activities on FS and non-FS land, combined with this proposed timber sale would not exceed soil standards considering, "Much of the surveyed area was logged and roaded, primarily 30 to 50 years ago. Substantial detrimental soil conditions (DSC) was caused by these activities.” (EA p.72) According to the Soil Specialists Report road construction results in a 30 foot width of soil disturbance. Damaged soil takes very long time to recover so existing cumulative effects of soil impacts from previous timber sales and other activities in the PA are minimized in the EA. The leaving of large organic debris (LOD) on ground does not replicate natural conditions. Leaving LOD post logging in the logging units will not replicate the constant feed of various size trees as occurs in natural forest. Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 Many of the logging units appear to be located in high and moderate mass wasting areas according to the map in Soil Specialist’s Report (figure 5). This map should be displayed in the EA with unit designations. Since there are no unit designations delineated on the map it is impossible to determine unit and road location in relation to moderate and high mass wasting hazard. EA fails to disclose the possibility and effects of and potential for mass wasting in areas with “moderate” rating. The Forest Service must quantify how much soil has been permanently impaired within the project area and forest wide, to determine if the principle of “sustained yield” is being applied, and to demonstrate consistency with NFMA’s prohibitions on causing permanent impairment of soil productivity. NOXIOUS WEEDS The EA fails to to adequately address the spread of noxious weeds, which have the potential effect of reducing site productivity by replacing natural vegetation and competing with same for soil nutrients, moisture, etc. It fails to adequately discuss the extent of noxious weed infestation in the PA. Who is responsible for the management of the weeds after the contract is over? How many acres have been treated in FYs 2013, 2014? How many races of the Project Area are infested with noxious weeds? The primary method for treating noxious weeds is with herbicides. What effect does herbicide application have on the flora and fauna of the forest? HISTORIC RANGE OF VARIABILITY (HRV) The EA takes an extremely narrow tree centric view of HRV. Trying to move towards the state of the forest as it was at one point in time is contrary to the nature of natural forest which is always changing. The large timber sale and road construction aspect of the Project with its regeneration logging, new “temporary” roads and additional culverts, and creating habitat or noxious weeds will move the PA farther from a natural functioning forest. The streams are laden with sediment, the roads are still contributing sediment, it is below the amended Forest Plan old growth levels, yet it is converting large contiguous areas of mature forest that has the potential to become old growth. It cares little for the elements that degrade the forest. The EA fails to examine the HRV of culverts, roads, noxious weeds and significant soil disturbance. The planting of 564 acres of proposed shelterwood logging will result in the reduction of the genetic diversity of the forest. The genetic structure of each of the tree species differ depending on its location on the landscape. Planting trees with nursery stock does not replicate the diversity that exists within each tree species as does natural regeneration. Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 WILDLIFE The EA is in violation of the CNF Forest Plan that requires monitoring of management indicator species populations and their habitat units to ensure the needs and of mature and old growth dependent species are being met. National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires surveys to insure the viability of management indicator species. With the Eastside Screens Forest Plan Amendment and the specific MIS habitat provisions of the Forest Plan, the CNF has relied exclusively upon project-level habitat designations as its only viability strategy. This is contrary to the Forest Service’s own best available science. The Committee of Scientists (1999) report also stress the importance of monitoring as a necessary step for the Forest Service’s overarching mission of sustainability: “Monitoring is the means to continue to update the baseline information and to determine the degree of success in achieving ecological sustainability.” Yet the CNF has not consistently published a Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report despite the forest plan requirement that it be issued annually. The EA also does not adhere to Forest Plan wildlife standard 4 which requires: “Give special consideration to management or protection of unique habitat components, not covered by other management indicator species, during evaluation of activities that may effect such habitats and the species that are dependent on them. Evaluate the species status, dependency on the component, and the extent or limitation of the component as factors influencing the viability of populations within the Forest or the range of the species.” The logging and road construction will result in fragmentation. The EA does not adequately discuss the impacts on MIS and other species as a result of the loss of interior forest habitat. What impacts will fragmentation have on the wildlife in the PA? Are there lynx in the Project Area? How has the CNF determined whether or not there are lynx in the Project Area? Are there grizzly bear in the area? How has the CNF made that determination? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely yours, Barry Rosenberg cc: Kootenai Environmental Alliance Page PAGE 9 of NUMPAGES 9 Selkirk Conservation Alliance
  • Length: 29:31 minutes (20.27 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

The 'A to Z' Experiment: The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Chainsaws...

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Wed, 04/22/2015


Barry Rosenberg , The e-mail address for comments for the North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project is:
nfmc_public@fishsciences.net


The A to Z Plan - Read this; Pay Attention or there won't be any more trees left to Sit is...
 
   The draft EA for the North Fork A to Z Project on the Colville NF in
eastern WA is out. I realize that you are all busy and that you don't have
time to comment on the timber sale , BUT perhaps you will find time to
oppose the Forest Service's experiment-handing over virtually all management and implementation of the timber sale to a profit driven timber corporation, in this case, Vaagen Brothers Lumber Company. The Forest Service is left only with the making of the decision.
 
        Since the Forest Service has been paid a million dollars for the
contract in which Vaagen will do all the work associated with the sale,
perhaps the FS will actually make a profit. This aspect needs to be further
investigated. If that is the case, what a motivator for the agency!
 
        We need to get ahead of the curve on this issue, if not I am pretty
sure that it will spread to other Forests and other timber sales. You know
what to do, write your legislators, the Chief of the Forest Service, letters
to the editor, op ed pieces, news releases, a letter to the Colville
National Forest, etc. It also might be a good idea to encourage your friends
in the FS to contact FSEEE and ask them to get involved. I have talked with
Andy Stahl about this sale-but he's on the fence. Let's make the public aware
that profit driven timber corporations will gain an inordinate amount of
control of their forests.
 
        You realize that we are among the few in the country who are aware
that this is happening! It also a great poster child for what's wrong with
collaboration process-just turn the management of the timber sale program
over to profit driven timber corporations.
       
        Like Dr. John the Night Tripper said in his song "Right Time, Wrong
Place," "It's actually happening." Some of the groups involved in this
collaborative, the Northeast Washington Forest Coalition, are The Lands
Council, Kettle Range Conservation Group and Conservation Northwest, along
with Vaagen Brothers Lumber Co..
 
        It just so happens it is a nightmare of a timber sale. Not only is
Vaggen Brothers going to log and road the project area into submission, but
the sale calls for creating more grazing habitat for those with range
permits. I've attached a summary of the Proposed Alt., Alt B. In response to
public comments, the agency created Alt C which supposedly has no road
construction and less then half the proposed volume of Alt B.
 
        Vaagen paid a million bucks for the contract not only to log the
North Fork, but the next sale will be the Middle and South Fork Mill Creek,
a major sale, is also part of the deal. It's outrageous! Of course there
will be not cumulative effects. 
  • Length: 16:47 minutes (11.52 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

Last Chance to Stop Fast Tracking the TransPacific Partnership: Life Will Never Be The Same

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Fri, 04/17/2015
Senator Ron wyden is central to the vote on The TransPacific Partnership.  We are his constituents.  We put him in office to represent our interests.  He can stop Fast Track...
But only if you call in your opposition.

Sen. Ron Wyden 202-224-5244



The TPP is way more than a trade deal: It will gives global corporations an international tribunal of private attorneys, outside any nation's legal system, who can order compensation for any "unjust expropriation" of foreign assets.
 
Even better for global companies, the tribunal can order compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation's regulations. Philip Morris is using a similar provision against Uruguay (the provision appears in a bilateral trade treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland), claiming that Uruguay's strong anti-smoking regulations unfairly diminish the company's profits.
Anyone believing the TPP is good for Americans take note: The foreign subsidiaries of U.S.-based corporations could just as easily challenge any U.S. government regulation they claim unfairly diminishes their profits -- say, a regulation protecting American consumers from unsafe products or unhealthy foods, investors from fraudulent securities or predatory lending, workers from unsafe working conditions, taxpayers from another bailout of Wall Street, or the environment from toxic emissions.
  • Length: 15:01 minutes (10.31 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

Three Days of the Frontlines in the On-going Environmental Struggle

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Wed, 04/15/2015
First a few links for you:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/ship-webcams/


http://www.bark-out.org/content/take-action-now-stop-nestle



https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Solartopia




A small tornado that touched down Tuesday afternoon in the parking lot of a community college campus briefly lifted two people in a Jeep Cherokee into the air, then slammed the vehicle back down on its tires, witnesses said.   Student Josh Hollowell was between classes at Lane Community College's main campus when he saw the twister touch down, hitting four vehicles in the parking lot. The man in the Jeep told Hollowell he and his female companion were unhurt. A short time later they drove off.
No one was hurt, college spokeswoman Joan Aschim said.   "No injuries at all. We were very lucky," she said.   Both Hollowell and a campus safety officer, Sgt. Lisa Rupp, estimated the Jeep was lifted about 8 feet off the ground.   Hollowell, said he asked the man if he was OK.  "He said he and his girl were sitting in the car when it started hailing," the witness recalled. "They got out to look at the hail, got back in, shut the door and that's when the car lifted off the ground."  Eight feet off the ground.
 
2,  Inside Climate News has revealed that a key leader of oil and gas industry front groups that oppose new fracking regulations may have been playing both sides of the issue.
In an investigation into the funding of the Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) work on oil and gas regulation, Inside Climate News discovered that a key EDF funder had hired FTI Consulting’s David Blackmon to promote fracking regulations. Unbeknownst to his employer, Blackmon is a longtime oil industry consultant who is paid to oppose regulation of the fracking industry.
The funder in question is the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, established by the late George Mitchell, known as the “father of fracking.” George Mitchell owned and operated Mitchell Energy, the first company to combine horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett shale, which sparked the “shale revolution.” Mitchell created the foundation with part of the $3.5 billion sale of Mitchell Energy to Devon Energy. The Mitchell Foundation describes itself as “a grantmaking foundation that seeks innovative, sustainable solutions for human and environmental problems.”
While it’s goals seem noble, the fortunes of the Foundation and the people who run it continue to be inexorably linked to the success of the oil and gas industry.
 
 
3,  “If somebody not from your country commits a crime against somebody not from your country in another country, should the courts in your country have any jurisdiction over the issue?”
With remarkable prescience, this question was posed by Shell’s own Legal Director back in 2012. Remarkable because it’s pretty much what that very same company is now attempting to try and stifle the voices of millions of people who’ve spoken out and taken action against Arctic drilling.
Shell is asking the courts in Alaska to issue a draconian injunction against Greenpeace USA to force #TheCrossing to stop by getting our activists off the rig. The company is so worried about the global media storm that erupted when Zoe, Miriam, Andreas et al scaled the Polar Pioneer rig to expose Shell’s plans to drill for oil in the Arctic this summer, it’s taken the time-honoured step of getting a legal sledge hammer to smash dissent.
 
 
 
4,       From the Dept. of Terrible Timing:  Occupancy rates are exceeding pre-recession highs, and are expected to reach record levels in 2016. Profits per room are up over 11 percent this April compared to April 2014 and the average daily rate for a room is almost 13 percent higher than it was a year ago. Executive salaries have skyrocketed.
But the little-known trade association representing this robust $163 billion dollar industry is a major force fighting behind the scenes on Capitol Hill and in statehouses and courtrooms across the country to keep workers wages low.
On Wednesday, April 15, the same day that hundreds of thousands of working people in over 200 cities are expected to participate in the largest-ever mobilization of underpaid workers, the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) which represents the 1.8 million-employee U.S. lodging industry will join forces with the National Restaurant Association to ask Congress to block a federal minimum wage increase, shrink the number of workers eligible for employer-provided health care insurance, and challenge the National Labor Relations Board ruling protecting the rights of franchise workers.
 
 
5, In Greece yesterday  Anarchists attacked police with molotov cocktails and stones after a protest rally against maximum security prisons in downtown Athens, Greece, late on Tuesday.
About 400 black-clad people marched from the University of Athens administration building to the Greek parliament around 7:15 pm to demonstrate against maximum security prisons and demand the release of imprisoned terrorists. They wrote anti-establishment slogans such as “War on democracy” and “Burn all prisons” on the parliament’s courtyard wall and then returned to the university’s administration building.
 
 
6, A small tornado that touched down Tuesday afternoon in the parking lot of a community college campus briefly lifted two people in a Jeep Cherokee into the air, then slammed the vehicle back down on its tires, witnesses said.   Student Josh Hollowell was between classes at Lane Community College's main campus when he saw the twister touch down, hitting four vehicles in the parking lot. The man in the Jeep told Hollowell he and his female companion were unhurt. A short time later they drove off.
No one was hurt, college spokeswoman Joan Aschim said.   "No injuries at all. We were very lucky," she said.   Both Hollowell and a campus safety officer, Sgt. Lisa Rupp, estimated the Jeep was lifted about 8 feet off the ground.   Hollowell, said he asked the 
  • Length: 45:12 minutes (31.04 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

Bonnevilllw Dam: Killing Fish, Killing the River, Killing the Future Forever...Since 1937

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Thu, 04/09/2015

Here are some of  the tools you need to challenge corruption on the Columbia River...Before it is forever too late.
You can't 'restore' it, you can't 'sustain' it, if it's gone.



Here is the NW Resource Information Center:
http://www.nwric.org/



http://ourchildrenstrust.org/



  • Length: 29:07 minutes (19.99 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

Sometimes the Future...Apologia for Opinoniated Rant

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Mon, 04/06/2015

 nfmc_public@fisheriessciences.net

 
Barry Rosenberg
487 Greenhood Road
Priest Lake, Idaho 83856-8854
(208) 699-0843
barryrosenberg88@gmail.com
 
April 6, 15 AM/PMt 9:37 AM
Mark Teply
Cramer Fish Sciences Project Manager
4405 7th Ave SE, Suite 306
Lacey, WA 98503
 
Re: Comments on North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project
 
Dear Mark,
     Thank you for providing me the opportunity to comment on the North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project (NFMC). I also want to thank you for your prompt reply to my request for the Specialist’s Reports.
     I believe that the pre-decisional Environmental Assessment (EA) findings of No Significant Effects for the NFMC Proposed Action, Alternative (Alt) B and Alternative C are not supported by the documentation in the EA and the Specialist’s Reports. I will examine and comment on Alt B, but these comments are also relevant for Alt C although the the logging activities are much less than in Alt B.
     I do not agree with several issues that the EA finds are “outside the project scope,” or are dealt with in other documents.
GRAZING
     The EA does not provide any site specific information regarding the grazing impacts to the affected streams in the Project Area (PA). It states that the effect of current grazing allotments on water quality and riparian habitat are addressed in a separate grazing allotment plan. The name of the plan is not mentioned.
     What is the name and date of the plan, and what grazing allotments does it cover? In a seemingly contrary move, the EA finds it necessary to discuss protections from potential adverse effects to the grazing allotment from the proposed timber sale and offers enhancements such as creating up to 200 acres of openings and proposes planting them with native grass to provide more grazing area for the existing range permit.
     Have the cattle had any adverse effect on water quality and riparian habitat in the Project Area? When was the latest monitoring of site specific effects of cattle on the water resources in the PA? I could not find this information in the EA or the Specialist’s Reports.
     Alt B proposes to construct an additional 30.8 miles of new temporary road in addition to the already 65 miles of Forest Service (FS) and unmapped roads in the PA. The project also proposes to increase the amount of openings by conducting shelterwood and commercial thinning logging in the PA. These actions can make easier for the cattle to access the riparian habitat and streams which can result in additional adverse impacts to the fishery in the PA. The grazing issue is significant and should be fully examined in the EA.
     What stream segment in the PA has a TMDL due to excess coliform bacteria? Are the grazing allotment cattle contributing to the 303(d) status? This information should be provided in the EA.
CLIMATE CHANGE
     Deforestation is linked to climate change. The EA states the impact on climate change from this logging is insignificant, but the idea of cumulative effects is to consider those things that might seen insignificant but when added to other similar actions can have a significant effect. Given the EA’s way of dealing with this issue, it could excuse all particular logging activities wherever and whenever from being considered as a  contributor to climate change. The effects of deforestation on climate change should be fully considered in this EA.
 A to Z EXPERIMENT
     The EA avoids discussing the “elephant in the room.” In a precedent setting move, the Forest Service has granted Vaagen Brothers, a for profit timber corporation, broad and sweeping powers that includes designing the A to Z Project, doing the environmental analysis, writing the EA, deciding where, how, and how much to log, where and how many roads need to be constructed and just about everything else associated with a timber sale. The FS will make the decision.
     The respective missions of the FS and the for profit Vaagen Lumber Company are different and could determine the outcome, and financial and environmental impacts of the sale. It is doubtful that the FS is going choose the No Action alternative, or significantly alter the Project since Vaagen, a member of the local community and of the Northeast Washington Forest Coalition, bid one million dollars to participate in this experiment. By having Vaggen do most of the work associated with timber sale planning and management, it provides the opportunity for the Colville National Forest (CNF) to reach its timber target. It claims it cannot currently do so because of budget and staff reductions. This is a significant action and needs to be disclosed and fully discussed in the EA.
     The fact that the Proposed Action calls for a very large timber sale with an inordinately large amount of road construction could be consistent with the needs of a for-profit timber corporation. Vaagen needs to have a sale that offers a large timber volume to cover its bid price and the costs associated with the project. The public can expect large timber sales if this experiment is carried through to other timber sales. This is a national forest issue and the public throughout the country needs to know of this experiment and how it can affect the environmental outcome. The financial aspect of this experiment also needs to be fully disclosed.
WATER QUALITY
     The EA relies heavily on models in its effects analysis due to a paucity of on the ground scientifically credible quantitative monitoring information. There is no mention of quantitative monitoring to determine the effects of previous CNF timber sales to evaluate its effects predictions with reality.
     The WEPP road model and WEPP FuME are used to estimate sediment production. The EA states that the level of confidence of these models range from 1-50% is so broad that they should only be used as a means of comparison. Yet the model’s figures are used to predict sediment levels throughout the EA. It is unreasonable to put so much weight on these models given the wide range of confidence levels. How accurate are the predictions of a increase in sediment of 63% for duration of logging activities, a decrease of 1 percent in the short term, and a 65% decrease in the long term? The CNF should realize by no that logging and road construction are not surgical strikes. Do these figures include the sediment increases during Rain on Snow (ROS) events, lack of maintenance of roads and activities on non-Forest Service managed ground in the project area?
     Much is predicated on continued maintenance of new and existing roads after the project is over. Is that realistic given the reduced CNF budget and considering the poor condition of many existing roads? What percent of existing roads on CNF receive significant yearly maintenance? How many miles of CNF road received maintenance in FY 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015.
     The EA, and the Hydrology and Fishery Specialist reports lacks sufficient site specific watershed analysis for each of the affected stream drainages for the public to evaluate the environmental impacts. Is there significant bedload deposition, point and mid-channel bars, and adverse effects from cattle in site specific affected stream segments? It does mention that the streams fall short of INFISH Riparian Management Objectives (RMO) for width depth ratio, sediment, stream bank angle and large woody debris. The EA does not adequately discuss the causes and the significance not meeting the RMO. How long will the affected streams will remain impaired and how will these problems effect the fishery in the short and long term?
     What are the existing impacts to the fishery in the affected streams? The EA states that current sediment levels in project area streams are 23%. It does not adequately address the  short and long term significance of this amount of sediment deposition. What are the site specific recorded levels of sediment for each of the affected streams? What is the significance of these levels? What is the significance of the predicted increases in sediment production in each of the affected streams and project area? How are the affected streams dealing with the accumulated sediment? How long will it take for these streams to recover and meet the RMO’s given the increase in water yield and additional sediment that will be generated by the 30.8 miles of proposed new temporary road construction, logging and cattle damage? Road construction results in sediment, decommissioning the temporary roads adds another pulse of sediment. What is involved in decommissioning roads?
RAIN ON SNOW (ROS)
     Much of the logging activity takes place in areas susceptible to ROS. The timber sale proposes to build an additional 30.8 miles in addition to the existing 65 miles of road in the project area. The EA proposes 1,741 acres of shelterwood logging (avg. 75% of trees >7 inches dbh will be cut) and 2,277 acres of commercial thinning (cutting an avg. of 50% of  trees). The proposed logging will change large areas from mature forest canopy to intermediate forest canopy category. The EA fails to reveal what coefficients will be used for site specific areas to evaluate the susceptibility and intensity of a ROS event. The EA does not adequately disclose the effects of ROS events on site specific drainages that have varying amounts and types of logging, road density, spacial and other characteristics that influence a ROS event. What is the existing road density and the road density post logging/road construction in the PA? How does the CNF Forest Plan deal with road density?
     The EA does not compute Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA). Proposed roads and logging create a large additional amount of openings in the Project Area which could significantly effect water quality, quantity and fish habitat. How many ECAs will be created by the proposed timber sale? What is the total amount of ECAs in the North Fork Mill Creek PA?
     The Hydrology Specialist’s report, Figure 19, represents the mean daily peak flows for the North Fork Mill Creek. What date is being represented by that graph? One point in time is not  an adequate means of evaluation. The use of “mean daily peak flows” is not a fair representation of flow levels. The models used to evaluate the amount of ROS flows and its impacts are no substitute for daily readings from instream gauges on the North Fork Mill Creek. 
INSECTS AND DISEASE
     One of the justifications for the A to Z project is to reduce susceptibility to insects and disease in the PA. Are the current levels of insects and disease beyond those found in a normally functioning forest? Are they trending beyond normal levels? Is there data from site specific surveys conducted in the PA to determine the current levels of insects and disease? What best available science was used to determine that the proposed logging will “improve” the current situation.
 
 
FIRE
One Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action is to “reduce the threat of severe wildfire.” What is the basis for the assumption in the EA that the PA is ripe for a severe wildfire? The EA assumes in Alt A that without this project the chances for a severe wildfire will occur with extreme effects is increased. There are many examples of wildfires that burn in a mosaic fashion leaving a naturally functioning forest without having a significant effect on soils, water quality or wildlife. Fire is an important aspect of a naturally functioning forest.
     The proposed logging will significantly open up the area and reduce the amount of existing mature forest. These logged areas will more likely be drier, warmer, susceptible to increases in wind and will generate more ground fuels than currently exist. All these characteristics have the potential to increase the risk and severity of a wildfire. The EA does not adequately discuss these increased risks. The EA also states that it will leave a lot of fine material on the ground to increase the nutrient level. What will keep the fines from burning up, especially in the areas that will be broadcast burned? The slash generated by the logging and road construction also increases the risk and intensity of wildfire.
     The proposed action alternatives do not make the PA fireproof. The issue of wildfire is controversial. There are reports by credible scientists who dispute that logging significantly reduces the risk and intensity of wildfire. None of these opposing views are presented in the EA. The EA fails in its obligation to use the best available science in its analysis. The EA needs to consider the possibility of wildfire and its effects in all the action alternatives.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS    
     The EA needs to consider the cumulative effects on Mill Creek since another large timber sale, Middle and South Forks Mill Creek A to Z Project is to be implemented in the foreseeable future. These creeks and the North Fork Mill Creek drain into Mill Creek and could have significant direct, indirect and cumulative effects on Mill Creek.
     The EA lacks a sufficient and credible cumulative effects analysis because it does not adequately consider the past, present and site specific future activities on non Forest Service managed land in the project area. These activities need to be more carefully considered in all the cumulative effects analysis discussed in the EA.
EA relies on unreliable models to predict the effects of the proposed project because the CNF has not had a sufficient, scientifically credible quantitative monitoring program to enhance the reliability of the EA’s predictions. Is there an implementation and effects monitoring regime proposed for this project? If so, who is responsible and what are the specific elements of the proposed monitoring?
     It is hard to believe that 30.8 miles of road and 2.2 miles of road realignment plus all the ground skidding, slash piling, etc from previous activities on FS and non-FS land, combined with this proposed timber sale would not exceed soil standards considering, "Much of the surveyed area was logged and roaded, primarily 30 to 50 years ago. Substantial detrimental soil conditions (DSC) was caused by these activities.” (EA p.72) Damaged soil takes very long time to recover so existing cumulative effects of soil impacts from previous timber sales and other activities in the PA are minimized.
     The leaving of large organic debris (LOD) on ground does not replicate natural conditions. Leaving LOD post logging, and cutting many of <7” trees in the logging units will not replicate the constant feed of various size trees as occurs in natural forest.
     Many of the logging units appear to be located in high and moderate mass wasting areas according to the map in soil specialist’s reports (figure 5). Since there are no unit designations delineated on the map it is impossible to determine unit and road location in relation to moderate and high mass wasting hazard. EA fails to disclose the possibility and effects of mass wasting in areas with “moderate” rating.
 
 
Sincerely yours,
 
Barry Rosenberg
cc: Kootenai Environmental Alliance
     Selkirk Conservation Alliance
     
  • Length: 14:41 minutes (10.09 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

'Roll On Columbia, Roll On'...Right Over Tribal Fisheries, Treaties and Traditions

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Thu, 04/02/2015

This, from The Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission's website:

Columbia River Treaty
The United States’ Columbia River Treaty with Canada governs hydropower and flood control on the 1,200-mile Columbia River. The current treaty, implemented in 1964, does not consider the needs of fish, a healthy river, or the treaty fishing rights and cultural resources that are now fully protected under modern laws.
The U.S. and Canada negotiated the Treaty to last at least 60 years (2024). The Treaty allows either party to terminate it but they must provide a ten-year notice of their intent to do so. That ten-year window opens in September 2014. Seeing that date on the horizon, CRITFC started taking actions during this biennium to secure seats at the table for the tribes to participate in the analyses and decisions leading up to 2014. Now 15 Columbia Basin tribes are actively working to reshape the Columbia River Treaty to protect and benefit tribal culture and resources.
The impacts of the Columbia River Treaty are second only to the decision to dam the Columbia in the 1930s. The Treaty required the construction of Duncan, Arrow, and Mica dams in Canada and allowed Libby Dam to be built in the U.S., creating more than 20 million acre-feet of new storage. Under the treaty, the U.S. paid Canada $64.4 million to provide 8.95 million acre-feet of storage for flood control in the lower Columbia, but it is only guaranteed through 2024. The U.S. returns to Canada half of the power the new Canadian storage produces in the U.S. This power, called the Canadian Entitlement, is worth on average $300 million a year.
The tribes’ participation in the Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review is critical for protecting tribal rights and interests, including improving ecosystem functions and ensuring favorable conditions for other tribal resources.
In fall 2010, the Columbia Basin tribes began participating in the Treaty Review. The tribes gained the agreement of the U.S. to regard ecosystem function as coequal with flood control and power production during the Treaty Review and to include measures to restore and preserve tribal resources and culture.
The tribes are also seeking representation on the U.S. negotiating team if changes to the Columbia River Treaty are discussed with Canada. The tribes were not consulted during the initial negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty; as a result, the Treaty fails to include tribes or tribal interests.
As 2010 ended, the tribes’ small work group finished reviewing the Treaty Review Phase I and Supplemental Reports and began work on an Ecological Assessment to analyze the impacts on ecosystem functions and other tribal resources. The Phase I Report, narrowly focused on the twin obligations of power and flood control, provides baseline information about post-2024 conditions both with and without the current Columbia River Treaty. The Ecological Assessment will provide a baseline look at the Treaty’s impact on ecosystem functions.
The Columbia Basin tribes will continue holding work sessions on a recurring basis.
  • Length: 30:00 minutes (20.6 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

The 'A to Z' Timber Sale - How to Spell The Death of a Forest

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Wed, 04/01/2015

Ever heard of an ‘A to Z’ timber sale?  You know…when a private logging company pays off the Forest Service for the freedom to “manage” the land.?

No.
You haven’t heard of it and that is exactly what the timber industry needs – secrecy, complacency ignorance – in order to get away with the murder  of a forest. 
        Since the Forest Service has been paid a million dollars for the
contract in which Vaagen Brothers Timber will do all the work associated with the sale,
perhaps the FS will actually make a profit. This aspect needs to be further
investigated. If that is the case, what a motivator for the agency!
 
        We need to get ahead of the curve on this issue, if not I am pretty
sure that it will spread to other Forests and other timber sales. You know
what to do, write your legislators, the Chief of the Forest Service, letters
to the editor, op ed pieces, news releases, a letter to the Colville
National Forest, etc. It also might be a good idea to encourage your friends
in the FS to contact FSEEE and ask them to get involved. I have talked with
Andy Stahl about this sale-but he's on the fence. Let's make the public aware
that profit driven timber corporations will gain an inordinate amount of
control of their forests.
 
        You realize that we are among the few in the country who are aware
that this is happening! It also a great poster child for what's wrong with
collaboration process-just turn the management of the timber sale program
over to profit driven timber corporations. 
  • Length: 45:43 minutes (31.39 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

Oregon Wild...Unless We Let Them Have Their Tree Farm Future

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Thu, 03/26/2015
Doug Heiken with Oregon Wild is today's guest.  And The  NW Forest Plan is our second guest.  The conclusion of the whole effort is simply:  there is nothing left but preservation until there is nothing lft to preserve.  And that elusive vanishing point appears just beyond the horizon.
For now.
Whn will the so-called 'Timber Counties' wake up to their folly funding?
When will Oregon rein in the predators? Would be not be better 

When will Cascadia finally wake up to the fact that...

A  'managed' forest is a tree farm


http://www.oregonwild.org

  • Length: 14:50 minutes (10.18 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

The Greenpeace ship, The Esperanza takes on Shell Oil's Arctic Antics

program: 
Air Cascadia
program date: 
Wed, 03/25/2015
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/The+Esperanza/14c4c2f729924753
  • Length: 14:47 minutes (10.15 MB)
  • Format: MP3 Stereo 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

Comments

membership means more

your threat of quitting your membership gives me two options for analysis:

1) you gave money to Theresa via KBOO.

2) if Theresa died tomorrow, you'd give up your membership.

my interpretation

1) that's cool, man.  you support community-based radio based solely on your dedication to one weekly half-hour show. that demonstrates that Theresa's voice represents/intrigues you (and many, many others); however you don't feel represented by any one of the other 500 people who volunteer their time and energy in the 24/7 endevour, and you don't value the input (and miraculous existence!) of the other 5-10,000 members and ten times as many listeners; neither do you support the KBOO mission of including as many underrepresented voices as possible on the air, with natural turnover, schedule changes and opportunities as new people arrive.  Membership gives you the power to affect the decision-making, which is why you gave money to Theresa via KBOO; and, by golly, you will do everything in your power to keep her on the air, and you want the KBOO website visitors to know how you feel when they read the comments.  You'd even like them to join you in your fight.

2) wow.

my opinion

Personally, Theresa's show is one of my  favourites and there are plenty of shows that I not only don't like or don't listen to, but also complain about out loud.  It's my radio station, and, like my family, I will not be quiet when they need to shape up or ship out.

writing inflammatory statements on the webpage will remain simply that: inflammatory statements with a reaction or two from trolls (see the 20 pages of Anonymous written about me because of the audio I submitted that Jenka edited), which, in the end, result in: NOTHING.  If you want to chat with others online, that's fine, but you should know that nothing said here is considered in the Committee meetings. It's just an informal public forum, not policy binding.

my advice

Instead of threatening us (volunteers, members, listeners and our very existence), why not use your valuable internet time to phrase it as, for example, a question to which one of us could easily respond:  "Have there been any changes to Theresa's show?  I noticed lately that it has been preemented or even cut.  It is my favourite show. [I fear Air Cascadia will take its place--not necessary but very telling that you chose Chris' page to write it--ed.]. "  You can copy the question to Theresa's email (though I know from experience she doesn't respond) and/or print it out and put it in her cubby hole at the station. And/or show up to the meetings.  And/or call Theresa during her show--she takes calls, you know.  Ask her if she'll train or mentor you to do the same kind of work she does.

p.s.  Air Cascadia basically is the AM News is Chris Andreae: i was engineering {i'm flattered that you liked it}and was very sad when it was cut--but that is the way of the station; we adhere and adapt to the ever-fluctuating needs of the larger community--but i watched, with great pleasure, as it morphed into Air Cascadia.  Though i adore Dennis Bernstein, 15 less minutes of his voice is no skin off my back. 

Highting!

Crystal

air cascadia

im a conservative right wing trucker and i think cris andrae is the greatest broadcaster on the radio. i try to listen when i dont need traffic reports.
her scathing commentary is the best. i would join kboo but i fear america will become too weak and barry will force me to find a green job soon . keep up the good work
michael j

The anchor news program

The anchor news program Democracy Now, conveiniently aired at 11 AM so that all could tune in was moved to 7 AM with a result that most if not all of the people who work nights won't be tuning in as they are still sleeping. Also missed the 40th anniversary bash as it was inconveinently held from 4 to 10 Pm, on a weekday, which would exclude anyone working swing from attending unless they took a day off. Why couldn't this have been held on a Saturday or Sunday?
Air Cascadia is a very rough and unpolished program that leaves me tuning to OPB or just turning it off.
The choppy, emergent voice of Cris Andreae is certainly a large part in that.
If it is true that Press Watch will be axed for this then it will be an easy decision to withhold future pledges from this listener.

What happened to Presswatch?

Is Air Cascadia taking over what Therisa has been doing? If so, I may give up my membership. First, the am news gets axed to accomodate Democracy Now, now is Presswatch going under the plow?

 

Copyright © 2012 KBOO Community Radio | Copyright Policy | Community Guidelines | Website Illustration & Design by: KMF ILLUSTRATION