News

5/30/13 

Wary of approving a draft General Plan Update policy that would prohibit residential subdivisions in flood plains, a majority of the Board of Supervisors supports conditionally allowing them.

Supervisors reviewed the update’s Safety Element last Monday and debated a policy that bans new residential lot splits in areas that are entirely within 100-year flood plains. Those areas are identified in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) insurance maps.

The majority of the board is development-friendly and uncomfortable with update policies that block new construction opportunities. Supervisor Rex Bohn said the Arcata Bottoms is one area where people have told him they’re worried about not being able to do lot splits.

“There’s a lot of concern among those people and the last thing we want to do is deny …” he said, leaving the sentence hanging.

“When I look at the word ‘prohibit,’ I have it underlined several times,” said Supervisor Virginia Bass. “I wish we could use something that’s more like ‘discourage.’”

Supervisor Estelle Fennell called attention to written comments submitted by the Humboldt Association of Realtors that claim affordable housing construction will be impacted by a flood plain prohibition.

But Supervising Planner Martha Spencer said her department habitually recommends not allowing new residential parcels in flood plains to avoid exposing people and homes to risk. Board members strived for flexibility, however.

“If this said ‘discourage,’ how would that be implemented or interpreted by the Planning Commission?” asked Board Chairman Ryan Sundberg.

Spencer said an environmental impact review could include an “over-riding consideration” – a statement that declares a project’s public interest value outweighs the presence of unavoidable impacts.

Supervisor Mark Lovelace asked Spencer for an example of an “over-riding public interest” that would allow a new residential parcel in a flood plain.

“I can see where there might be a private interest,” he said. “But I really can’t figure what kind of findings would justify it.”

“If there wasn’t any, then you wouldn’t have to worry about it,” said Sundberg.

The approach that most supervisors supported took a somewhat different tack – when County Planner John Miller said that elevating a home can, in some instances, give protection from floods, a rewording of the policy was proposed.

But Lovelace said that he has “enough constituents who live in or near flood plains” who deal with flood problems “year after year after year” to convince him that subdividing those areas isn’t a viable idea.

Over Lovelace’s objections, the rest of the board approved a revised policy that allows flood plain construction if the Board of Supervisors finds that flood impacts can be “reduced to less than significant levels.”

There was more debate between Lovelace and the rest of the board when an implementation measure on limiting impervious cover in “flood-prone watersheds” was considered.

The measure had been proposed by the Healthy Humboldt Coalition, which Lovelace had represented before being elected, during the county Planning Commission’s review of the update. 

The commission was deadlocked on the proposal.

Noting that the measure is recommended by Healthy Humboldt and not staff, Supervisor Estelle Fennell said it’s “over-reaching” and “cost-prohibitive.”

Lovelace said the measure aims to prevent the watery nuisances that are a regular part of the lives of residents in the greater Arcata area. “In areas of Sunny Brae, when it gets a good rain, the ability of the stormwater system to handle it is just not there,” he continued.

The viability of the measure was debated without resolution and supervisors decided to reconsider it later, as part of a drainage ordinance in the Water Resources Element.

Supervisors finished their review of the Safety Element, which includes additional flood management policies and others on fire, earthquake and tsunami hazards. The board continues its review of the update on June 3, when afternoon and evening hearings will be held.

Read Original Article

McKay Tract purchase could be made by year’s end

5/1/13

Community members packed the auditorium of Winship Middle School Tuesday evening, taking the opportunity to study and discuss a county plan to acquire a portion of the McKay Tract for a community forest.



Green Diamond Resource Company — which owns the McKay Tract — has been working with the nonprofit Trust for Public Land to arrange the purchase, which could happen as soon as the end of this year, Deputy Director of Environ­mental Services Hank Seemann told the crowd. The trust intends to grant the land to the county upon its purchase.



Developing a comprehensive manage­ment plan for the potential forest based on community feedback is now a top pri­ority for the county, Seemann said.



“Within the next four to six months, there could be $6.5 million available to purchase somewhere on the order of 1,000 acres,” Seemann said. “The county needs to be ready if that land is offered. That decision will be with the Board of Super­visors and they will need a management plan that identifies what the community wants and the costs to deliver that.”

Depending on the amount of funding the trust can secure, the community forest could range somewhere between 775 acres and 1,415 acres. The unpurchased portion of that 1,415 acres would be subject to an easement that prevents development.



While the purchase of the land will be made possible through grants — the trust has secured two $1 million grants in federal and state funds, with an additional $4.5 million expected to be secured by the end of 2013 — the county would potentially be responsible for manage­ment of the forest, including trail mainte­nance, parking and other projects.



For many, Tuesday’s meeting was a first opportunity to learn about the proposed community forest. In a panel discussion led by Humboldt County 1st District Supervisor Rex Bohn, a number of resi­dents and stakeholders aired their views.



Although the majority of citizens expressed broad support for the project, many also brought up concerns about public safety, placement of access points, logging rights and funding.



Gregg Gardiner, Former Eureka Chamber of Commerce president, said he thought a big concern for many in the community would be the placement of the public access points into the proposed forest. Gardiner said traffic is already a huge community concern.



He said he worries that a poorly placed trailhead could make a bad problem worse. “Solve that, show us what you are going to do with that before you move forward with this project,” he said.

“If you don’t do that, you might have a real problem. You might have spent $5.5 million of taxpayer money and have a community that wants to hang you.” Responding to Gardiner, Seemann said the county does not have a specific proposal in place for the design and place­ment of facilities, trailheads and trail networks.

“That’s where a lot of the heavy lifting is going to be for this project,” he said.

“We need to take our time and figure out where it makes sense to have access points and trails. That’s where we are really inviting the public to provide input with their ideas and concerns.” Another big issue raised was how the county would contin­ue to support the community forest in the long run.

According to officials, the county is hoping to model the McKay Tract community for­est after the Arcata Commu­nity Forest and create a self­sustaining “working forest.” Under the plan — which has not yet been clearly defined — timber harvesting would be used to pay for forest manage­ment and maintenance. Cur­rently, timber harvesting is conducted in the Arcata Com­munity Forest for two to three weeks every year.

Proceeds from the timber sales go directly back to fund the forest.

Despite the plan, one Eureka resident said he views the project as a free horse. Govern­ment, he said, does a good job of building the initial project, but it often does a poor job of funding the ongoing mainte­nance and operational costs.

Mark Andre, director of the City of Arcata’s Environmental Services Department, agreed that Arcata’s plan isn’t perfect. “The working part of the for­est has issues,” he said. “There is litter, there is camping, there are fires and things you have to be prepared to deal with, and costs. I agree with everything said. We have been able to do it, but there are times when it has been stressful.” Despite the issues, Andre said there is another factor that he thinks makes it all worth it.

“It is an intangible, and we have been a real guinea pig for it, but we feel the Arcata Com­munity Forest is an economic driver for our town in ways that are hard to measure,” he said.

Andre said he and other city officials feel that the forest contributes to property values and makes the area desirable to both business and tourists.

Although many speakers Tuesday night drew applause, perhaps the loudest show of support was given to a Eureka resident Zeke Smith who urged residents to “keep the big picture in mind.” Smith, a father of two, said the pro­posed project makes him proud to call Eureka home.

“I just want to urge every­one to get past the details,” he said. “This is the kind of thing that I think this area really needs. It’s going to benefit everybody, including my chil­dren and hopefully their chil­dren later.” With officials calling Tues­day’s meeting a success, See­mann said the opportunity for community input is just beginning. Seemann said the meeting kicks off a four- to six-month process by the county to define and tailor plans to meet community needs. That will include addi­tional community meetings, as well as presentations at both Humboldt County Board of Supervisor and Eureka City Council meetings. “This is our first big public meeting to share the information we have now,” Seemann said. “We are just starting to form the questions, so, yes, we do not have all the answers. We are hoping to get there, though.”

Read Original Article

4/9/13

After three years of consideration, West Coast federal fisheries managers on Tuesday unanimously adopted their first ecosystem approach to decisions on fishing seasons and catch quotas.

Meeting in Portland, the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted the Fishery Ecosystem Plan, whose first initiative will be to consider how to make sure enough little forage fish remain in the ocean for bigger fish to eat.

"Clearly, federal managers have gotten the message that the days of crisis-based management, managing for a single species, and how to maximize catches are over," said Ben Enticknapp of the conservation group Oceana.

The Pacific council followed the lead of other councils, which have established ecosystem plans for federal waters off the southern Atlantic Seaboard, the Aleutian Islands of Alaska and the Hawaiian and Marianas islands, said Yvonne deReynier, who overseas development of ecosystem plans for NOAA Fisheries Service in Seattle. Each council is taking its own approach to the issue, because there is no legal mandate, she added.

As recently as 2002, the West Coast groundfish fishery, which includes popular species like lingcod and rockfish, was in trouble. A fisheries disaster was declared after a decade of declining catches.

Since then, managers have gone beyond just cutting back catch quotas to buying out half the groundfish fleet, protecting marine habitats and taking steps to minimize the numbers of unwanted fish that get dumped overboard dead, known as bycatch. Fisheries have been rebounding.

Under the ecosystem management program, the council will get regular scientific reports on the health of the ocean that will figure in decisions on setting fishing seasons, catch quotas and other issues.

Conservation groups were disappointed the program was non-binding, but felt the scientific reports will go a long way toward informing good council decisions, said Enticknapp.

Scott McMullen, a retired fisherman who serves on Oregon's Ocean Policy Advisory Council and helped write the program, called it a milestone, but added it faces challenges due to the difficulty of measuring things like forage fish numbers.

"In the forest, you can go out and count the trees," he said. "You can't do that in the ocean."

Brad Pettinger, director of the Oregon Trawl Commission, a fishing industry group, said West Coast fisheries have rebounded since the 2002 groundfish collapse, with strong catches of shrimp and whiting, the fish that is processed into artificial crab, and bycatch below 5 percent.

"Obviously, you want to be careful on forage fish, because it's part of the food chain," he said. "But I don't think we are anywhere close to (overfishing those species). The Wild West is gone."

Two major forage fish species, sardines and anchovies, are fished for bait and food. But lesser-known species, such as sand lance and some smelt are not. Conservation groups worry that as demand for fish protein increases, they will be overfished.

The fish go through a boom-and-bust cycle of about 50 years, whether they are managed or not, Pettinger said.

Read Original Article

4/8/13

A 20-foot fishing boat that washed ashore in Crescent City on Sunday is believed to be the first piece of debris to land on California shores from the 2011 tsunami in Japan.

After local law enforcement towed the vessel off the beach, a team from Humboldt State University's Redwood Coast Tsunami Work Group, an interagency group that works to reduce earthquake and tsunami hazards, came to Crescent City to record the Japanese writing on the side of the boat.

Officials hope to use the writing, which was thought to be a license or registration number, to identify whether or not the boat washed to sea with receding tsunami waters.

"We are working with the Japanese government through the local consulate to confirm the source of any debris that we can," said Keeley Belva, a spokesperson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  "It's challenging to confirm something; we need to have some sort of identification."
 

Out of about 1,700 reports of potential Japan tsunami debris that NOAA has received, only about 25 items have been confirmed to be from the 2011 tsunami, Belva said.

"Marine debris is a problem in general," Belva said. "There are things with Japanese writing that might not even be from Japan."

Read Original Article

For photos, visit the Redwood Coast Tsunami Working Group's Facebook page.