9/22/12

A bill authored by Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata, would help North Coast crab fishermen by restricting permit transfers to boats from outside of California.

”It's kind of a loophole that we're trying to close,” said crab fisherman Aaron Newman, Humboldt Fisherman's Marketing Association president.
In a press release, Chesbro said the bill is meant to “prevent a repeat of last season when large crab boats from out of state took unfair advantage of the devastation in Crescent City Harbor caused by the tsunami.”

Chesbro said he hopes the bill, AB 2363, can take effect immediately after Gov. Jerry Brown signs it -- ideally in time for crab season, which usually starts in December. The main provision of the bill would set tighter limits on emergency transfers of Dungeness crab permits to boats outside of California.

”It was something that was well intentioned that was taken advantage of by some individuals,” said Eureka crab fisherman Mike Cunningham, who helped develop the new legislation with Chesbro.

Newman said larger, out-of-state boats purchased local crab fishing permits after the March 2011 tsunami devastated the Crescent City harbor, taking an unfair share of crabs from local fishermen with smaller boats.

”There were boats that weren't even operable before the tsunami,” or not actively participating in crab fishing, Newman said. Because of the tsunami emergency, those boat owners were granted permission to transfer their crab fishing permits.

He said he hopes the new legislation will force regulators to ask some tough questions before a permit is transferred.

”Is it a bogus transfer, or is it for people that actually need it?” he said. “Some permit owners were offered a pile of money to go fishing, which is not the intent of the law.”

Cunningham stressed that the option of transferring permits is still there for boat owners, in the case of “bona fide” emergencies. But, he said, the current regulations needed more restrictions.

Another provision of the bill would allow crab fishermen to retrieve lost or abandoned crab traps at the end of the season, even if the pot is not their own. Under current regulations, fishermen can only pick up their own pots.

”This means less derelict fishing gear in the water to ensnare wildlife or to interfere with other fishing operations,” Chesbro said.

Fishermen are usually good about picking up their own traps, Newman said.

”But, they do get abandoned,” he said. “There are people that are sloppy.”

That can cost other fishermen, Newman said. If a pot gets tangled up in a boat, it can cause damage.

A final provision would allow crab fishermen to sell meat from test crabs. Each year crab size is tested to see if the crabs are big enough for the season to commence. In the past, experts have recommended that the season be delayed due to a poor crab meat-to-size ratio -- a delay that sometimes means weeks without income for crab fishermen.

Newman has been involved with the preseason testing process before, a process he called “expensive.” Fishermen have to go out and fish, and a plant has to process 5,000 pounds of crab, he said.

The test crab catch was always given away to charities, Cunningham said. Under the new provision that the catch can be sold, allowing fishermen and testers to recoup costs and still have enough crab left over to give away, he said.

Read Original Article

9/18/12

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D - North Coast) to boost California’s growing aquaculture industry. 

AB 1886 expands the role of an industry funded aquaculture coordinator within the Department of Fish and Game (DFG).

“Aquaculture is a clean, sustainable industry that has great growth potential in California, especially on the North Coast,” Chesbro said. “The coordinator program is important to the continued growth of California aquaculture, especially when it comes to helping the industry to meet high environmental standards.”

“The California Aquaculture Association requested this legislation and the industry asked for an increase in licensing fees to pay for the expansion of the aquaculture coordinator’s duties,” Chesbro added.

Specifically AB 1886:

• Requires DFG’s aquaculture coordinator to coordinate with California’s Aquaculture Development Committee, which is comprised of industry representatives, state regulators and other stakeholders.
• Increases fees for first time registration and renewal of aquaculture operations and increases the base penalties for engaging in aquaculture without paying registration or renewal fees.
• Requires the DFG to apply revenue from these fees specifically to the aquaculture coordinator program and maintain an up-to-date cost accounting and provide it to the Legislature and the Aquaculture Development Committee.

Greg Dale is the Eureka-based regional manager for Coast Seafoods, which is a major producer of oysters on Humboldt Bay. He is past president of the California Aquaculture Association and currently serves on the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District.

“The aquaculture industry is pleased the governor signed Assemblymember Chesbro’s bill,” Dale said. “The coordinator helps the industry collaborate with the DFG on sustainable aquaculture practices and relay our successes to the public.”

“The California Aquaculture Association offered to pay higher fees to expand the coordinator program and in return require the DFG to increase transparency and accountability,” Dale added. “This legislation ensures revenue from these fees is applied to the aquaculture coordinator program and that an accounting of the program is provided.”

Read Original Article

Previously: The World is Yours, Oyster Farmer

9/18/12

It was standing-room only at yesterday’s special meeting of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.

“Was it something I said?” joked Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg, who last week expressed confusion and concern over the general plan update process and suggested possible changes to that process. Many, including this reporter and Sundberg’s fellow supervisor, Mark Lovelace, interpreted those comments as the opening salvo in an effort to undo some or all of the work that has been done on the update process thus far. Not so, Sundberg asserted.

“Just to be clear, I don’t want to kill the general plan. I don’t want to start over.” Sundberg said he was just seeking a way to clearly track the changes between the existing framework plan, which has been in effect since 1984, and the updated draft, 12 years in the making and approved by the planning commission. “I take responsibility for my part in not being clear about that,” Sundberg said.

Interim Planning and Building Department Director Martha Spencer then laid out a proposed method to help make things more clear. For each element of the general plan under consideration, Spencer said, staff would prepare two reports: one looking back and the other looking forward. Report No. 1 would compare the framework plan with the planning commission-approved draft (as Sundberg requested) and provide background on the reasons for any changes. This would be prepared prior to any board vote on the element in question.

Report No. 2 would be prepared after the vote, examining the big-picture implications of the board’s decision, clearly stating the changes that had been made to the framework plan and providing a potential blueprint for implementation.

Sundberg was pleased, and tranquility settled across the land.

Or not. The crowd had come loaded for bear, and while many commenters eased off the trigger in appreciation of Sundberg’s comments, most fired away. Developers, contractors and other property-rights advocates thanked the three conservative supervisors for the suggestion they now disavowed — namely, starting from scratch with the 1984 framework plan and updating it just enough to comply with state and federal laws.

Others, including environmental activists, argued that the update process represents years of hard work and compromise from all corners and urged the board to move forward.

Even county planning commissioners, who spent years helping to craft the current draft plan, disagreed on the best approach. Current Second District Commissioner Mel Kreb urged the board to respect the efforts of others. “You inherited the work done by previous supervisors, planning department staff and the planning commission. You need to ask yourself if you trust any of the work that those people did, because you repeatedly hear from people here who say you should not trust anything that’s ever been done in this process. And I just reject that idea outright. It’s an insult,” Kreb said. “You must get to work.”

But former commission chair Jeff Smith urged the board to think independently. “None of you were on the board when this ship set sail … but the bottom line is, whether you’ve been on the board for 15 minutes or 15 years, it doesn’t matter. This is gonna be your plan, and it’s up to you to do what you think is right.”

Public comments continued for nearly three hours, leaving the supervisors no time to proceed with the task at hand — continuing its review of the general plan’s land use element. Instead, the board elected to skip the remainder of that contentious element for now and move on to chapters five and six (community infrastructure/services and telecommunications) at the next meeting, to be held Oct. 1. Staff will prepare new reports for those chapters, as proposed.

Read Original Article

9/14/12

The video of Monday’s contentious general plan update meeting of the county board of supervisors is now available for viewing (here). If you have the time it’s well worth your while.

The original report on the meeting mentioned a handful of reasons offered by the board’s new conservative majority — Ryan Sundberg, Rex Bohn and Virginia Bass — for throwing the switch to derail the general plan update process, now in its 13th year. But as the full video reveals, over the course of the meeting this trio of supervisors suggested a wide variety of excuses for undoing much of the work that’s been done so far. Here are the ones we caught. (The relevant debate starts around the 84-minute mark.)

1. It’s too confusing
“I guess the more I look at this the more confused I get. … It’s super-overwhelming to me, I know, to try to go through this thing and understand it. The more I read it, it seems like, the more backwards I get. So [Bohn and I] met with [Interim Planning and Building Department Director] Martha [Spencer] to ask, is there a way we can bring this thing down to something digestible … basically take the [1984] framework plan, is what we talked about, and then making it up to state code[emphasis added].”

     —Ryan Sundberg

“I wished I had the knowledge that, I mean, that Mark [Lovelace] had. He’s got to work on this for 12 years. I’d like to have some of that knowledge so maybe I’d have a little bit of understanding.”

     —Rex Bohn

2. Though nearly complete, the updated plan might somehow cost more money than scrapping it and starting over
“I don’t know if we can afford the plan that’s here. I think we can afford a Yugo and I think we’re building a Cadillac sometimes with all the extra addendums and everything else when we just need to worry about the state and federal mandates.”

     —Rex Bohn

3. Private property rights and values need more protection
“I made promises to people that I would protect their property rights and their property values, and I’ve got to stand by that. And if somebody up here can say that property rights and property values are gonna be held in whole when this gets through, I’ll vote for the whole thing right now and we can walk away from here, but I don’t think anybody can do that.”

     —Rex Bohn

“Getting all this paper and documents at one time and trying to digest it and know what’s in it and be able to look somebody in the eyes at the end of this and say, ‘This is not going to affect your property rights. This is doing what we want it to do’ — I just don’t know how I can get there with this.”

     —Ryan Sundberg

4. [?]
“We gotta start a new plan in a year anyway.”

     —Rex Bohn

5. Someone might sue the county for reasons unknown
“I’m worried that at the end of this it’s gonna be sued, [though we’ll] probably get sued anyways.”

     —Ryan Sundberg

“I don’t want to make it the lawyers’ full-employment plan.”

     —Rex Bohn

6. The update and its supporting documents have too many pages
“This just is so big. I had a conversation with [former county supervisor] Jill [Duffy] this morning and asked, ‘How did this thing get this big?’ … Is there a way to pare it down to make it more understandable for me, for the general public, for people who are going to come in and get permits?”

     —Ryan Sundberg

7. Despite holding more than 200 public meetings, the county didn’t give people in rural areas enough opportunity to comment
“The one thing I got out of so many meetings, there’s always somebody to get up and says, ‘You haven’t come at the citizens advisory committees.’ That pops up, and I’m just grabbing it ‘cause it’s in my notes in about three places. We heard from Mattole and Honeydew. They didn’t feel like they were included. … I don’t know what we did in Willow Creek, Orleans and the outside areas.”

     —Rex Bohn

8. Virginia Bass’s vague sense of unease at fate’s unpredictability
“What my uncomfortableness at this point, especially when you, you know, we’re looking at the document, we have asked for so much information … but what I don’t have in there, and I have never really asked or we haven’t really been able to get to the bottom of, which really rises to my radar today is, again, the unintended consequences and my needing to have a level of confidence in moving forward.”

     —Virginia Bass

9. No big government
“The level of governance — how much more bureaucracy are we throwing in on top of this?

     —Rex Bohn

Members of staff, along with Supervisors Mark Lovelace and Clif Clendenen, attempted to address this dizzying barrage of complaints. Lovelace said breaking the plan up and addressing its individual elements piece by piece, as Sundberg suggested, would be impractical since the elements are all interrelated. Spencer added that breaking the process up would only make it longer and more complex, since each piece would require a separate environmental impact report. Addressing concerns over litigation, she said breaking the plan up would be far worse. “Your board is always subject to more litigation the more environmental documents we do.”

Read the Rest of This Article

For More on the Latest GPU Kerfuffle...

Public Involvement, So Crucial And So Stupidly Disregarded

Kevin Hoover, Arcata Eye - 9/17/12

The Supes’ GPU Swerve: Where We’re At and Where We’re Going
Hank Sims, Lost Coast Outpost - 9/14/12

Options covered at next general plan update meeting; county staff to ask supes if they want new review materials
Megan Hansen, Times Standard - 9/13/12

EXCLUSIVE: That ‘Simplified’ General Plan Update
Hank Sims, Lost Coast Outpost - 9/11/12

Baykeeper’s Jen Kalt on the Board of Supervisor’s Sudden General Plan Right Turn
Hank Sims, Lost Coast Outpost - 9/11/12

C U, GPU?
Ryan  Burns, North Coast Journal Blogthing - 9/11/12

Dead Plan Walking: Matters get tense as new majority of Supervisors prepare to kill General Plan Update
Thomas Bradshaw
, Humboldt Sentinel - 9/10/12