Latest

3/8/14

Here on the North Coast of California, salmon and steelhead are an amazing renewable resource that have been integral to the social, spiritual and economic health of our region for thousands of years. Although most populations are currently listed as threatened or endangered species, there are still limited opportunities for tribal, commercial and sport fishers to enjoy the benefits of these fisheries.



Many other businesses that cater to the fishing industry also derive income and livelihoods.



After a century-plus legacy of watershed degradation and overfishing, concerted efforts by a diverse segment of our community have worked together to heal our watersheds in an attempt to restore salmon and steelhead fisheries. Restoration efforts have focused on reducing catch numbers and improving instream habitat.



These ongoing efforts require diligence and a long-term vision. If we are successful in restoring our fisheries, it is hard to exaggerate the ecological and economic benefits that future generations could enjoy.

The Humboldt County General Plan contains admirable goals which recognize the importance and economic value of healthy watersheds with abundant salmon and steelhead runs. A primary goal is to “maintain or restore biological resources for long-term public and economic benefits.” In regards to watershed protection, “riparian corridors will be protected from encroachment with development restrictions” with an “emphasis on the protection and restoration of endangered or threatened species.”



Sounds promising?



Unfortunately, in the past 45 days our Planning Commission moved to weaken the protection of fish-bearing streams in the General Plan Update. Within the plan’s conservation element, Standard BR-S5 defines a Streamside Management Area (SMA), or in lay terms a “streamside riparian buffer.” The SMA definition that the Planning Commission revised had been developed through an extensive review period and was based on current California Board of Forestry rules with the caveats that “the width of a SMA shall be expanded when supported by written evidence from the requesting referral agency” and “where Forest Practice Rules designate wider stream buffer areas, the widths of the SMA shall be expanded to be consistent with those regulations.”



Prior the Planning Commission’s revision of BR-S5, my main criticism of the SMA definition was the weaker standard placed on intermittent fish-bearing streams, a 50-foot buffer versus 150 feet. Seasonally, intermittent streams provide essential spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and steelhead. Given the current stressors of dry winters, a changing climate and un-permitted water extractions, many of our local streams that once flowed year-round are now intermittent. These streams need more protection, not less.



Based on the Planning Commission’s revisions to BR-S5 and a straw vote which approved these edits on Jan. 30, my additional concerns include: lack of compliance with Forest Practice Rules, a reduction of buffer widths on perennial streams, and a weakening of language regarding agency input (“shall” replaced with “may”). These changes rendered the General Plan’s SMA definition non­compliant with state and federal standards. If adopted, this definition of a SMA could jeopardize our fisheries and associated economic benefits.



I was pleasantly surprised when the Planning Commission reversed its straw vote and rejected the watered-down SMA definition at its Feb. 27 meeting. I sincerely would like to thank the three commissioners who voted to reject the revised SMA definition. At the same time, it’s discouraging to note that it took several meetings and diligent presentations by California Department of Fish and Wildlife scientist Gordon Leppig and others to convince several commissioners that reducing streamside protections would be unwise.



So what’s the next step? I suppose the SMA definition gets kicked back to the Board of Supervisors for them to decide its fate: maintain the current version or override the Planning Commission’s 3-3-1 vote and adopt the weakened, non-compliant version. This is where I would encourage you, the public, to voice your opinion. If you fish in the rivers or ocean for salmon and steelhead (as a tribal member, commercial fishermen, professional guide or sport-fisher) or run a business that derives income from the fishing industry, please let the Board of Supervisors know that you want adequate protection to streamside management areas in the General Plan. Let the supervisors know that they should take the necessary steps to foster salmon and steelhead recovery so that future generations of Humboldt County residents may also share in the benefits provided by viable fisheries.



Ross Taylor has worked locally as a fisheries biologist since 1986.

Read Original Article

3/7/14

Speaker after speaker spoke critically of the U.S. Navy's plan to train and test weapons along the North Coast, and expressed concerns over potential environmental impacts during a public meeting at the Red Lion Hotel in Eureka on Thursday.

”We want you to bring the message that we want no project, we want no testing. We want peace,” Northern Humboldt High School Trustee Dana Silvernale said.

During more than an hour of public comment, community members pleaded with the Navy to use simulations instead of active sonar testing, to consider the harm to marine life and to postpone the testing and training activities to explore other options. No one spoke in favor of the plan.

After each person -- including a woman dressed as a dolphin -- spoke, an audience of 120 applauded loudly and hollered cries of support. The Environmental Protection Information Center also circulated a petition.

One man, who served in the Navy for four years, said he fell in love with nature in the Navy when he heard mammals through the hull of a nuclear submarine.

”When we drove through schools of dolphins it sounded just like children playing in a school yard,” he said. “We cannot afford to lose .... dolphins and whales because boys want to play with their toys.”

Arcata resident Dave Meserve suggested the Navy use simulations instead.

”It's quite possible in this world of video games, in this world of advanced electronics, to do simulations,” Meserve said. “Why can't you simulate the active sonar and have them see exactly what would be going on, him or her, without putting the sound out there that's destroying or harassing marine life?”

During the five year-training, which is scheduled to begin in 2015, the Navy will test sonar technology, electromagnetic devices and explosives, and perform training exercises off the coasts of Northern California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska if the federal regulatory permits are renewed. Humboldt County is located at the tip of the training area.

The training is necessary to “protect the United States from its enemies, protect and defend the rights of the United States and its allies to move freely on the oceans, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to failed states,” according to the introduction of a draft environmental impact statement.

Public comment on the 2,000-page draft, which reviews the potential for environmental factors, including marine life, natural habitats and air quality, is due by March 25. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted to send a letter to the Navy last week asking for the comment period to be extended.

The Navy is also seeking authorization from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service to perform training exercises and tests which may potentially kill, harass or harm marine mammals.

A final environmental impact statement is scheduled to be released to the public in the summer of 2015.

Read Original Article

3/2/14

In January, the Board of Supervisors sent the Conservation and Open Space Element of the draft General Plan back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations, asking them to focus on a “short list” of 13 goals and policies that had not received unanimous support of the old commission.

The Planning Commission has mostly ignored the short list. Instead, they tried to reduce setbacks for streamside management, until after lots of public comment at the Feb. 27 meeting, when they reversed that straw vote. They eliminated the goal of a “countywide trail system that meets future recreational and non-motorized transportation demands,” and gutted language supporting and protecting conservation and open space lands through development review.

Watching recent Planning Commission meetings is downright spooky. The pro-development majority seems to have put Chapter 10 through a word processor, searching for all of those progressive, environmentalist, big government words, like “open space,” “streamside setback,” “development review,” “conservation,” and “trails.”

Then, they have crafted language removing the offending words from the goals and policies. It seems less like a “review” of the element, and more like aggressive advancement of a rigid agenda that essentially rewrites it. Their changes have invariably served the perceived interests of wealthy and powerful developers and real estate agents, who want less county oversight of projects.

In fact, they are acting against their own self interest by weakening these elements. Why are home values rising here? Why are people buying? It's because they want open space, unobstructed views, healthy streams and good trails. If this area gets developed like all the other formerly rural counties, it will no longer be a magnet for those seeking to escape urban and suburban areas. If open space standards are weakened, long-term developer and real estate profits will decline.

Language protecting streams and open space and supporting trails was included because hundreds of local residents, who participated in creating the original draft of the plan, want to protect our natural world from irresponsible development and provide residents with transportation and recreation opportunities that are essential to healthy communities.

Open space preservation not only makes our community more attractive; it is mandated by state law. However the commission tweaks the goals, planning review will continue to be legally required for projects where open space policies apply.

Commissioner Lee Ulansey worried that countywide trails might involve prescriptive easements or the seizing of private property, and even when staff clearly stated that none of that is likely, he led the majority in weakening the goal of a trail system.

The Planning Commission is charged with making the General Plan internally consistent. However, by removing the goal of a “countywide trail system” they have made it inconsistent with the Circulation Element, which “Support[s] efforts to establish and connect a regional trails system.” Consistency between elements is essential and helps to secure outside funding for trails.

As a building contractor, I have argued on behalf of clients before the Planning Commission, trying to get the commission to drop requirements to build the first sidewalk in their neighborhood, because planning called for sidewalks on their street, and the project was of sufficient scope to trigger the rule. I argued that it was absurd to build an isolated stretch of sidewalk, and that it was an unfair burden to require them to pay for it. I lost that argument. The project was put on hold. I was annoyed not to get the job.

In retrospect, it makes good sense, for the community as a whole, to have sidewalks in a residential neighborhood on a busy street, and the only way they will be built is to require those who wish to develop their property to do their share of the sidewalk building. For the long-term greater good it is okay to have requirements that may seem burdensome to contractors and landowners in the short-term.

Government, in general, limits some of our personal freedoms in order to support the greater good. We must register our cars, follow traffic rules, not pollute streams, vaccinate our kids, send them to school, not litter, and generally respect our fellow humans and our environment.

A majority, consisting of recently appointed commission members, have taken it upon themselves to weaken language that they consider to be a burden on developers or a threat to private property rights. They seem to lack respect for the community consensus supporting quality of life and environmental values, which was central to the creation of the draft plan.

The Board of Supervisors should save a lot of time and money by stopping the circus of Planning Commission re-review of the Open Space Element. Then, they can move forward to approve the draft General Plan Update that already exists. On Feb. 27, responding to public comment, the commission voted to ask the board to “review the work completed and give us further instructions.” That is a good start.

Dave Meserve is a former Arcata city councilman.

Read Original Article

2/15/14



The U.S. Navy is scheduled hold a meeting in Eureka in early March to allow members of the public to comment on the potential environmental impacts of the Navy’s five-year training and weapons testing plans along the North Coast.



During the training period — lasting from 2015 to 2020 — Navy personnel will conduct exercises and test a variety of weapons and equipment such as sonar technology, electro­magnetic devices and explo­sives off the coasts of Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Northern California.



The testing area extends to the tip of Humboldt County.



The Navy’s northwest region public affairs special­ist Liane Nakahara said the meeting in Eureka — one of eight along the West Coast — will be a combination of an open house and a public forum, during which visitors can speak with Navy representatives involved with the project.



“What’s different about this meeting is that halfway through, at around 6:30 p.m., the project manager will also give an overview of the draft analysis and our findings,” Nakahara said.



The project’s nearly 2,000­page draft environmental impact statement reviews the potential consequences for air quality, marine life, natural habitats and other environmental factors, and is currently open for public comment until March 25. Nakahara said comments may also be submitted at the public meeting.



“The most important things is to let the public know that they are able to comment,” Nakahara said. “It really helps us to make a stronger document.”



The introduction of the draft environmental impact statement states the training is necessary to “protect the United States from its enemies, protect and defend the rights of the United States and its allies to move freely on the oceans, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to failed states.”



The document also states that the training and testing periods “have the potential to impact the environment,” which former U.S. Department of Agriculture crop loss analyst and environmental activist Rosalind Peterson said is an understatement.



“What I’m concerned about along our coast is the way that experimental weapon testing won’t stop during whale and salmon migrations,” Peterson said.

“I think it is imperative that we at least buy some time for the public comment period on this environmental impact statement.”

Peterson said she has sub­mitted a letter to the Hum­boldt County Board of Supervisors and other county boards in Northern California urging them to take action to extend the public comment period and to replace the Navy’s open house with a formal meeting.

“We are requesting that the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, in order to give residents time to file public comments, also contact our California senators and Con­gressman Jared Huffman, requesting them to work toward gaining an extension of time to file public comments,” she said.

Peterson said the Navy “already made up their mind” on its impact state­ment when it submitted a Dec. 18 letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service seeking authorization to potentially harm marine mammals.

The Marine Mammals Pro­tection Act requires that the Navy receive permission from the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct tests and training exercises which may potentially kill, harass or harm marine mammals. Peterson said the public com­ment period on the Navy’s request — which ends Feb. 28 — should also be extended. “Most people don’t know what’s happening,” she said.

Multiple phone calls to the National Marine Fisheries Service northwest region headquarters were not returned by deadline.

Read Original Article