Community Selection:
Find a place where you will run into the least opposition ~ target a “Cerrell” community. (21 years ago the California Waste Management Board paid Cerrell Associates half a million dollars to define communities that won’t resist siting of LULUs [ Local Undesirable Land Use]. Cerrell provides important proof that siting is 99% politics and 1% science)
The Cerrell study says:
Least Likely to Resist:

Southern/Midwestern
Rural
Open to promises of economic benefits
Conservative
Above middle age
High school or less education
Low income
Catholics
Not involved in social issues
Old-time residents (20 years +)
“Nature exploitive occupations” (farming, ranching, mining)

Most Likely to Resist:

Northeastern, western, California
Urban
Don’t care or benefits are minor concern
Liberal, welfare state
Young and middle aged
College educated
Middle and upper income
Activist
Residents for 5 – 20 years
Professional occupations

Scope out the opposition:

__ monitor news media to identify community activists
__ assess potential opponents past behavior
__ determine their self-interests and vulnerabilities
__ keep good, up to date files on opponents
__ determine their sources of funding, if any
__ find out who their friends are

Don’t’ waste time or money trying to win over the NIMBYs:

__ follow all of the steps in #2, scoping out the opposition, plus:
__ involve them in the process, painlessly and ineffectively, through devices like Citizens Advisory Committees.
__ take them on trips to see “models” on which our LULU will be based.
__ find out what they need (or would like) and promise it (jobs, money for schools, public services, free trash service, direct grants to the community, increased tax base, donations for community projects, museums, the arts, etc.) Don’t worry about delivery.
__ determine what benefits they will get from the LULU and make sure they understand what’s in it for them.
__ find backers who have “name appeal”, who will sway others.
__ get opinion-shapers and community leaders bought in by offering them shares in the project either at reduced cost or for free, or promise them jobs or business for their companies or economic benefits for the community in general.

Let our allies take on the NIMBYs for us.
Use sophisticated public relations methods:

__ use “quality” public relations materials, the slicker the better.
__ use our greater resources by use of the media through paid ads in local newspapers, television and radio.
__ have good, well-trained people representing us. Recruit tired, disgruntled staff from environmental groups who are tired of working for public interest wages.
__ use quality audio-visual materials (videos, slides, tape, displays, movies.)
__ prepare and distribute quality materials for the children and donate them to local schools. Cartoon or coloring books are an excellent tool.

Keep the debate focused on our agenda and make the NIMBYs react:

__ create a sense of the inevitable with remarks like, “it’s got to go somewhere.”
__ speed up the process, or at least create the impression the process is moving along rapidly to keep the NIMBYs on edge.
__ emphasize every single step of the process so NIMBYs see each stage as a life-or-death situation.
__ bring in and keep in the forefront an array of “bi-lingual” technical experts (who can speak plainly when appropriate, but are good at scientific double talk.)
__ only do battle with the NIMBYs in forums that are either friendly (e.g. government-run public hearings) or controlled by us.
__ have hearings and meetings held in rooms that are much, much larger than the anticipated crowd, it makes it look like not many people are concerned.
__ do all we can to subtly avoid meeting the NIMBYS on their turf, but without running the risk of seeming cowardly.
__ if we must meet the NIMBYs, try to select who and how many of them we meet.
__ make NIMBYs feel they must answer our technical arguments, point by point, by stressing rules of government procedure that require decisions to be made on the legal and technical merits, discounting public sentiments and politics.
__ make arrangements with government hearing officers so our technical experts make
their presentations first. Have our technical experts take their time.
__ dismiss NIMBYs during and after encounters as “emotional, hysterical, selfish, unfactual, irrelevant, selfishly motivated, anti-jobs, tree huggers, socialists (or worse), unrealistic, ignorant, hypocritical” (by focusing on household toxics use and other consumer behavior.)
__ try “sand-bagging” (it’s fun) Get hearing dates changed at the last minute, sinceNIMBYs have little money or access to technical experts and changing a hearing date will make them panic

__ try to get hearings scheduled during the daytime on a working day or during the Thanksgiving to Christmas period.

Use “state of the art” language:

__ start with “state of the art”
__ “acceptable risk” – what our experts, not to mention our accountant, feels would be ok for the turkeys in this community
__ best available technology
__ best available European technology
__ use poly-syllable, hyphenated terms derived from Latin or Greek or explanations like, “the hydro-geological characteristics of these soil strata indicate a excellent permeability co-efficient of ten to the minus 7, meaning that compounds such as VOCs will leach at the rate of less than 1 ug per milliliter per meter per year, but that’s not a problem since our state of the art leachate collection system will capture any ambient discharge that
escapes our double-lined 60-mil polyethylene liner, which as you all know, is the height of the science of such technologies.” Ok?
__ only talk about what we want to talk about, in terms we want to use. If NIMBYs don’t use our language, treat them as ignorant and unworthy of respect, talking down to them is the best way to do this.

Carefully monitor the NIMBYs’ activities:

__ Monitor the media. Keep a good clippings file. Record any television coverage.
__ Have a representative at their meetings. They need not identify themselves, though there could be backlash if discovered. If our rep does identify him or herself, it could have a useful chilling effect on the group or could make the representative a “lightning rod” for anger (which isn’t so bad, since s/he isn’t a policy maker).
__ listen to what people are saying on the street, on radio talk shows, in the letters to the editor column, etc.

Be prepared to get tough with the NIMBYs:

__ When the NIMBYs hold a public meeting, it’s perfectly legal for us to invite our supporters, including employees, to attend in force and speak their minds.
__ if NIMBYs make uncomfortable accusations about us, don’t be bashful about having our lawyer send them a letter warning them of the consequences of breaching libel orslander laws (even if there’s no such breach evident).
__ If, heaven forbid, a member of the NIMBYs works or does business for us, take all necessary steps to remind him/her about basic loyalty and self-interest
__ if the NIMBYs sue us, we’re well without our rights to counter-sue
__ if the NIMBYS sue us, make sure our counsel wages an aggressive defense. Don’t hold back in tactical use of the deposition, interrogatories, etc.
__ use higher authorities. If the NIMBYs block us through local government, see if a higher authority (state, federal or the courts) can override that local decision
__ everybody’s got their price. Determine the price of key NIMBY leaders and be prepared to pay it
__ rough stuff, like getting physical, isn’t nice and could backfire in a real serious way. But be prepared to do damage control should one of our employees view our frustration with the NIMBYs as a signal we want them “dealt with”

Have a back up site in mind, or a Plan B if we fail to defeat the NIMBYs.

Titan Site Tagged Aquatic Resource of National Importance  by Marina Giovannelli on WHQR

Titan No Show, Forum Goes On by Keith Barber in Lumina News

Cement Company Eyes Pender by Amanda Hutcheson in Topsail Voice

The report is in 6 parts that are easily downloaded.

Jeff Salt
Great Salt Lakekeeper
Mercury threat spreads across Utah
Anglers, beware: Latest tests show dangerous chemical in fish statewide

By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated:01/26/2007 02:56:15 AM MST

New tests show that mercury contamination is widespread in fish throughout Utah, including 14 areas where it is higher than federal standards, state officials said Thursday.

But they caution that further review or more testing is warranted before advisories to limit the amount of fish eaten are issued beyond the three now in place.

“This shows the problem is ubiquitous,” said Cheryl Heying, a member of the Statewide Mercury Work Group and a state air-quality official. “And there are hot spots.”

John Whitehead, assistant director of the Utah Division of Water Quality, said more than a dozen areas around the state – many of them favorites among fishermen, like Jordanelle Reservoir, the Weber River, Joes Valley Reservoir and Panguitch Lake – have been identified as mercury hot spots.

“This is one of our major concerns,” said Whitehead.

Other popular fishing waters where at least some fish were above the federal mercury limit (when averaged, they fell below) include: Strawberry Reservoir, Deer Creek Reservoir, Bear Lake and Scofield Reservoir.

The Utah Health Department is going over the results of mercury tests on nearly 821 fish taken from 139 locations around the state. On average, they found that 12 percent of the fish sampled contained mercury above levels considered safe for unlimited consumption by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Whitehead said it will be about a month before the state Health Department finishes reviewing the data and decides what sort of advisories are in order, if any.

“If you look at the data set, it’s pretty clear some of these sites have a pretty clear conclusion and some are questionable and need further sampling and analysis,” he said.

The advisories are intended to protect people from ingesting too much mercury in its toxic form, methylmercury, which is a neurotoxin. The advisories usually target women of childbearing age and young children, who, if exposed to too much mercury, may suffer impaired brain function that can result in difficulty thinking, talking and/or remembering.

Methylmercury builds up in the food chain and eating contaminated meat is thought to be the most likely way for people to be affected.

Utah officials already have issued consumption advisories for three fish – channel catfish from the Green River in Desolation Canyon; largemouth bass from Gunlock Reservoir in Washington County; and brown trout from Mill Creek in Grand County – and three Great Salt Lake ducks, the common goldeneye, northern shoveler and cinnamon teal.

One question making it difficult for the state to decide on more advisories is that in some sites there have been too few fish sampled to determine scientific certainty that they contain mercury above levels considered safe.

Walt Donaldson, chief of aquatics for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, says he would like to see a larger sample size from each of the sites.

“A sample size of three to five fish is not enough to indicate an area of concern,” he said. “We would like to [look] at 30 or more fish for a broad spectrum. That would allow us to look at young fish and old fish and develop a solid average.”

Ed Kent, chairman of the Utah Anglers Coalition, said he was not surprised with the announcement of the new mercury hot spots.

“This is a known persistent problem in other parts of the country. Even though it is still in its infancy here in Utah, as far as the discovery of it, I’m not sure it will have an impact on the fishing industry,” Kent said. “We just need to be sure to educate the public and let them know the risks.”

Collecting and processing samples costs about $50 apiece with a new mercury analyzer the state bought about a year ago. And, with no additional funding to address this relatively new issue, the agencies have been limited in the number of samples they process.

Last year, the EPA turned down a state request for about $95,000 to help understand mercury in the Great Salt Lake, where methylmercury levels are some of the highest ever measured in the United States. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has requested $213,600 in his 2008 budget proposal specifically to deal with the mercury problem, including tracking down the sources that might be responsible for the contamination.

Judy Fahys