Latest

1/20/16

Last week, standing in ankle-deep water, I overturned a seashell and a slimy eel slithered up, and then another and another.

Now, after a week of looking into the murky waters at the California Coastal Commission, where an attempt is underway to fire the director, I'm up to my elbows in sea serpents.

When it comes to protecting the greatest 1,100-mile stretch of beach on the planet, we'd all like to think decisions are made without politics or money getting in the way of good judgment.

But come on. We know better.

"I think what has developed over time is a culture of the cozy," said Pedro Nava, a former state legislator and onetime member of the commission.

He did not mean "cozy" in a good way. He meant that some of the state's most powerful lobbyists, representing some of the state's wealthiest people and corporations, are too close to the decision makers.

"The only representatives who can afford to attend each and every coastal commission meeting up and down the coast, and create relationships with the commissioners, are those who are paid by the big developers," Nava said.

To make matters worse, some of these schmoozers- and browbeaters-for-hire are called "agents" and are not technically lobbyists. If they were, which they should be, they'd have to register and report on exactly who's paying them and how much.

Public access to beaches is sometimes at stake when billion-dollar projects are proposed, said Nava. He thinks the public has a right to know exactly who is paying whom and how much, and that the information should be available to the public on the commission website.

Nava left the commission in 2004 but recalls feeling uneasy about one particular gathering, while he was in office, at the exclusive Montage Laguna Beach.

That's a questionable choice of lodging for commissioners, even though the hotel provided a discount for state employees — especially since that hospitality followed approval of the hotel project by the commission.

"Nobody else got a state rate, but guess who else could afford to stay there," Nava said. "The agents for the developers. The grass-roots and community-based organizations had to find rooms miles away, which meant that in the evening, when you were in the cocktail lounge, the only people who weren't staff and commissioners were the agents for developers. What happens is you become influenced and affected by all those people."

This astute observation comes as a throng of environmentalists and commission critics are railing against what has been called an attempted coup on executive director Charles Lester by commissioners with the most pro-development voting records — some of whom happen to be personal appointees of Gov. Jerry Brown.

I should note that one anti-Lester commissioner keeps insisting to me that neither the governor nor the developers' cadre of lobbyists, or "agents," have anything to do with the Lester matter.

They say it's all about Lester's performance.

Brown's staff, meanwhile, insists he has had no involvement and has not taken a position.

But some coast watchers suspect that Brown has not been fond of the commission going back to the 1970s, when then-girlfriend Linda Ronstadt wrangled with regulators over a permit for a project at her Malibu home, and Brown called the commission "bureaucratic thugs."

Be that as it may, at least three state legislators are now speaking up in support of Lester, including Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego).

"My view is that Lester is balanced and fair," said Atkins. "I'm concerned that the attempt to oust him is politically motivated as opposed to being about management issues, and I'm concerned that an effort is underway to undermine the objectivity of the commission."

Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael) said the commissioners have "disregarded any number of staff recommendations" on proposed developments and "should be taking a close look at themselves" before pointing fingers at Lester.

Assemblyman Mark Stone (D-Santa Cruz), a former coastal commissioner, also came to the defense of Lester, whose future could be decided Feb. 10 at a hearing in Morro Bay.

"It's not a performance issue," he told me.

He calls Lester "a consensus builder" who has done "a good job working with local jurisdictions to get projects moving forward but still be compatible with the values of protecting coastal resources."

Atkins and Stone both said they're considering legislation to create greater transparency in the way the commission does business, including a possible bill requiring "agents" who lobby the panel to register as what they are: lobbyists. Past attempts, by the way, have failed.

Another dark corner of the operation, crying out for reform, involves what are known as ex parte communications. "One-sided" kind of describes the meaning of the term.

Anyone who wants to weigh in on a development issue can request an ex parte contact with a commissioner so that parties with other views know that such a meeting occurred. But guess who benefits most from that arrangement — at least in the minds of critics.

"By and large the commissioners are working with and listening to people who are professionals and are paid to travel up and down the state, and the public is at a huge disadvantage," said former Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan.

"I don't have the money to go flying up and down the coast wining and dining commissioners," said Stefanie Sekich-Quinn of the Surfrider Foundation.

Here's another problem: Commissioners have to report any ex parte communication on a given proposal and say what was discussed, but they often don't provide specifics. And they don't have to indicate whether they declined ex parte requests from those with differing views on a project.

I can't think of a good reason that shouldn't be changed immediately, with all such information posted on the website for all to see.

Sekich-Quinn said she requested to speak to three commissioners last fall on a Broad Beach reclamation project in Malibu, but got no responses. Then, at the hearing, those three commissioners reported one or two ex-parte communications with the other side.

In the end, the commissioners voted against a public access provision Sekich-Quinn and others had wanted.

That access point would have been on public trust land, and still the Broad Beach residents — including some of Hollywood's biggest names — prevailed.

If there is justice, or karma, an infestation of eels will soon hit Broad Beach.

Read Original Article

1/20/16

The powerful California agency that manages development along the state’s fabled coastline may soon oust its top executive, setting up a battle between environmentalists and developers who frequently clash over projects large and small.

The potential shakeup at the California Coastal Commission raises questions about the direction of an agency often caught between property owners and conservation along the 1,100-mile coast.

The commission’s chairman, Steve Kinsey, notified Executive Director Charles Lester in a letter released Wednesday that the panel will consider whether to fire Lester next month.

“Alternatively, the commission has offered you the opportunity to present a transition plan for your replacement as executive director,” Kinsey’s letter states.

Commission spokeswoman Noaki Schwartz said in an email that Lester was not available for comment and that he has exercised his right to have a public hearing on his possible dismissal, which will take place Feb. 10.

Lester has held the post since 2011, and no reason was given for the proposed dismissal in the letter.

Kinsey did not return a phone call or email seeking comment. However, environmental activists suspect some commission members want to push out Lester to make way for management that would be more welcoming to development.

Humboldt Baykeeper Director Jennifer Kalt described Kinsey’s action as “an attack on the Coastal Act” and stated that the commissioners behind the proposed power change are those that “consistently vote to not uphold the Coastal Act.”

“They just want to see development at all costs,” Kalt said. “They don’t want to see sensible, sustainable development.”

Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network said Lester’s ouster would leave the agency in turmoil and intimidate its staff.

“It’s not just about the homeowner who wants to build on the bluff. We are talking about billion-dollar projects,” Jordan said.

The commission has been at the center of fierce battles over beach access in celebrity enclaves, and it’s facing a lawsuit after banning SeaWorld from breeding captive killer whales at its San Diego marine park.

Attempts by the Times-Standard on Wednesday to reach the commission’s North Coast representative Martha McClure — also a Del Norte County supervisor — were not returned.

Having been a coastal county co-chair on the California State Association of Counties when Lester was appointed in 2011, Humboldt County 3rd District Supervisor Mark Lovelace said the association fully supported Lester’s appointment after former executive director Peter Douglas stepped down due to the lung cancer diagnosis preceding his death in 2012.

While Lovelace said he had yet to hear from the commissioners about their proposed power change, he said there has been no obvious evidence that would possibly justify Lester’s removal.

“If there are specific accusations, I assume those would center around having provided information that led to improper decisions,” Lovelace said. “I haven’t heard any, which leads me to believe that this is more politics than substance.”

For Lovelace, Lester has been very accessible to coastal communities, having held several joint meetings with coastal counties and cities and helping to secure grant funding for local jurisdictions to update their local coastal plans, including $90,000 for Humboldt County in 2014.

“He has absolutely changed the tone and relationships in regards to local governments,” Lovelace said.

Kalt said Lester helped to spearhead the development of a guidance document on sea level rise — a topic of significance for the Humboldt Bay area.

“They kind of had to adapt some of the laws put in place back then to meet that challenge,” Kalt said. “I think it’s very forward thinking — not stuck in 1972.”

The move to replace Lester comes in the midst of a long-running review of a proposed development of nearly 1,400 homes, a resort and retail space known as Banning Ranch in the Newport Beach area. Companies involved in the project include real estate firm Brooks Street, Cherokee Investment Partners and Aera Energy, which is jointly owned by affiliates of Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp.

“The timing of this may be very relative to the Banning Ranch case,” said Steve Ray, executive director of the Banning Ranch Conservancy, which wants the 400-acre site to remain open space.

“This is the last, large piece of unprotected open space left on the Southern California coast. This is the last big battle,” Ray said.

Lester, quoted in a media report last year, was skeptical of the project. Coastal Commission staff had recommended denial of the plan and thought developers didn’t work hard enough to identify sensitive habitat.

“This site is incredibly rich in biological resources,” Lester told the Orange County Register in October. “Despite its history of oil development, it deserves a more sensitive and creative effort to address the Coastal Act requirements than we have seen to date.”

Read Original Article

12/6/15

An invasive species of snail that is able to self-reproduce by the hundreds and outcompete native species has been discovered for the first time in Humboldt State University’s College Creek, and there is no known method to stop its exponential spread.

The new habitat between the HSU campus dorms and soccer field now provides the snails a foothold in the Arcata area to spread to other streams and watersheds like Jacoby Creek and the Mad River, HSU Fisheries Biology Assistant Professor Darren Ward said.

“There’s nothing to really stop them moving through that and moving downstream,” he said. “... That’s the best thing we can do at this point, is to keep them from spreading around even more.”

But stopping the spread is no easy feat. Measuring in at only 5 millimeters — or about a fifth of an inch — and living in wet areas like streams and rivers, New Zealand mudsnails can easily get wedged in the sole of a fishing boot or make their way into gear, boats and even hitch a ride on shoelaces, according to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator L. Breck McAlexander in Redding.

The snails have already established populations in Humboldt Lagoons State Park since at least 2008 and have also been found on the Klamath and Smith rivers and Redwood Creek. While he did not know exactly how the snails got into College Creek, McAlexander had his guesses.

“Humboldt State is like a mecca for fishermen,” McAlexander said. “That makes it an easy place to get those mudsnails established. Probably, these things are not going to go away. It’s just a matter to limit their spread in the meantime.”

Arcata Environmental Services Director Mark Andre said the snails have the potential to spread from College Creek. The creek drains into Campbell Creek and eventually leads to Gannon Slough, which can intermingle with Jacoby Creek during flood seasons.

“If it’s isolated we want to help keep it that way,” Andre said.

Native to freshwater streams and lakes in New Zealand, the snails were first discovered in the U.S. at the Snake River in Idaho in 1987 and later discovered in the Owens River in southeastern California in 2000. The snails have now spread to more than 15 states across the country, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

What makes the mudsnails so successful is their ability to self-reproduce, Ward said. Females produce their young live rather than in eggs and have up to 230 offspring per year. One snail and its offspring are able to produce up to an estimated 2.7 billion snails within four years, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The young already have developing embryos when they’re born and can reach maturity in about three to four months, Ward said.

How these population booms effect local waters is hard to measure, McAlexander said.

“The most obvious observation you can make is when these snails get established, they create explosive populations and the sheer numbers you can see makes you realize that they’re going to have an impact on the ecology,” he said.

The snails can also outcompete native marine invertebrates for food and space, which in turn can reduce the amount and diversity of food available to predators like fish, McAlexander said. He added that the mudsnails are also a poor food substitute for some fish.

Feeding trials conducted on rainbow trout that were only fed mudsnails found that 54 percent of mudsnails they ate passed through their digestive systems and came out alive, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The tested fish lost up to a half-percent of their initial body weight every day, “which is nearly equal to the impact of starvation,” according to the department.

McAlexander said this could cause issues for fisheries, although no major economic impacts have been associated with the mudsnails’ spread.

Andre said the city is monitoring the issue and will follow the state’s protocol to prevent any “ecological chain reactions” caused by the snails. He said they are training the city’s utilities and street crews about the issue and how to prevent the spread.

Methods on how to prevent the spread of New Zealand mudsnails can be found on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s website at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=22574&;inline.

Read Original Article

12/6/15

A town hall meeting in Eureka this week will allow the public to voice their views on what is the largest proposed aquaculture expansion in Humboldt Bay in at least a decade, according to Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District officials.

Currently undergoing an environmental review, the Coast Seafoods Company’s proposed expansion would triple its shellfish farming area from 300 acres to 922 acres in the northern and central portions of the bay.

Harbor district Deputy Director Adam Wagschal said the proposed project will bring the bay’s aquaculture operations close to historic levels, which he said were about 1,000 acres for Humboldt Bay.

“There really hasn’t been anything like this for quite awhile,” he said.

But unlike shellfish farming in the 1940s and 1950s, the project requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act before it can get its permit. The project’s draft environmental impact review currently calls on the seafood company to mitigate potential impacts to the bay’s ecosystem and cultural resources. The Dec. 9 town hall meeting at the Sequoia Conference Center in Eureka will give members of the public a chance to submit verbal and written comments on the proposed expansion.

Coast Seafoods Southwest Operations Manager Greg Dale — who is also the harbor district’s 2nd Division commissioner — said that he does not believe the company’s current aquacultural practices have any significant ecological impacts on the bay, and said the expansion was designed in a way that “literally has no impact.”

“It’s hard to agree to mitigate something that you don’t feel you have an impact on, but we’re going to do it,” Dale said.

Director Jen Kalt of the local environmental organization Humboldt Baykeeper disagrees with the project’s scope and the proposed mitigation measures.

“I think it’s too big, especially in combination with the harbor district’s pre-permitting project where they’re proposing to expand to be able to lease out areas for small growers, which I think is a really good idea,” Kalt said. “I think Coast’s expansion is tripling their footprint.”

Dale recognizes the expansion is large and substantial, but said that the company has undergone an unprecedented environmental review and using as much peer-reviewed scientific research as they can to back it up.

“It’s pretty light touch as far as industry standards go,” he said of the impacts. “It sounds big, but it’s not as big as it sounds.”

Coast Seafoods currently owns about 4,000 acres in the Humboldt Bay area, with only about 300 acres being used for shellfish culturing of Kumamoto oyster, Pacific oyster and Manila clam, according to Dale and the harbor district. The expansion would add 622 acres of intertidal culturing area, which Wagschal said are areas primarily used to grow oysters into market size as opposed to the more submerged subtidal areas out on the channel where shellfish nurseries are located.

Kalt said operations in these intertidal areas have the potential to impact eelgrass beds, which she said is a “keystone species” that provides several benefits to local wildlife including fish and birds. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife had also submitted similar comments during the draft’s initial study.

“They have no net loss policies for eel grass,” Kalt said of the district’s mitigation measures.

Wagschal said that draft environmental review would require the company to change how they configure their culture sites, such as the cultch-on-long-line method in which oyster cultches are grown on a rope that is suspended above the sea floor.

“The mitigation measure in the current description is having the long line methods spaced at 5 feet between the lines rather than 2.5 (feet), which provides more space for eel grass to grow,” he said.

The company would also be required to monitor their oyster beds from December to March each day to determine if Pacific herring have spawned on the nearby eelgrass, culture materials or sands, and must postpone their activities until the eggs are hatched. The review notes that Humboldt Bay is “the most important spring staging site in California” for migrating black brant geese, which feed almost exclusively on eelgrass, Kalt said.

The review also found there to be less than significant impacts for bioaccumulation of harmful dioxins in shellfish meat, which Kalt and the report state were primarily released into the bay by timber and pulp mill operations and caused the bay to be listed as impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Kalt said that if dioxins are consumed, they can cause cancer and reproductive damage, and they should be monitored due to the activities of the oyster industry.

“The dioxin binds with the sediment. Anything that stirs up the sediment has the ability to resuspend dioxin and spread it around the bay,” she said.

The public comment period for the district’s environmental review has been extended to Dec. 31 as opposed to its previous Dec. 10 deadline. Once the public comment period is closed, a final environmental review will be created based off the comments. Dale said they still have to obtain a permit from both the California Coastal Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which he said they have already began the processes for.

“Once those all of those are completed,” he said. “We get a permit that allows us to go ahead an start planting. We’re hoping to do it this coming summer.”

If you go:
What: Coast Seafoods Company’s expansion town hall meeting
When: 6 to 8 p.m., Wednesday
Where: Sequoia Conference Center, Room Sequoia A, 901 Myrtle Ave., Eureka

Read Original Article