Talk of railbanking draws 50 people



6/27/12

All it takes to get 50 people at a Humboldt County Board of Super­visors meeting is sending a letter to the North Coast Railroad Authority about rail and trail issues.



At least that’s all it took to pack the supervisors chamber at the Hum­boldt County Courthouse on Tues­day. A total of 43 people addressed the board about a proposal to ask the North Coast Railroad Authority — a group formed by the state Legisla­ture in 1989 to protect rail infra­structure — to form a committee to examine the possibility of creating a trail around Humboldt Bay to replace some of the railroad tracks.



County Public Works Director Tom Mattson said the railroad is an under-performing asset in the coun­ty, and that an NCRA-formed com­mittee could vet the multiple rail­road proposals that are in the works. “With nothing happening, it’s melting away,” Mattson said about the rail line.



Second District Supervisor Clif Clendenen, who serves as a director on the North Coast Railroad Authority, brought the committee idea before the board on behalf of a citizen group interested in the proj­ect. The group — called the Bay T(rail) Plan advocates — is suggest­ing the NCRA form a committee to look at “railbanking” the railroad around northern Humboldt Bay.



Congress created the term “rail­banking” in 1983 and it allows for unused rails to be converted into trails — at least until the time when the railroad is needed again. Sup­porters have said the act of railbank­ing preserves the railroad’s right-of­way, allowing the trail to be convert­ed back to a railroad if needed.



The citizen group ultimately wants the rail — which is owned by NCRA — to be converted into a paved, multi-modal path. The group is also advocating the rail line from Arcata to Samoa/Fairhaven be restored to support a tourist train.



A majority of the people who spoke during public comment were in favor of the Bay T(rail) Plan or the idea of at least forming a committee to look at railbanking.

Cutten resident Larry Strattner said it’s past time to form a committee to look at creating a trail around Humboldt Bay.

“I could’ve built a railroad to Mars in the amount of time this has been discussed,” Strattner said.

Cheryl Willis, Caltrans deputy district director of planning and local assistance, said Caltrans is interested in all modes of transportation and that it’s supportive of the supervisors asking NCRA to create a special committee.

Numerous people voiced concerns about railbanking. Speakers raised concerns about who would even be able to pay for the trail if the idea was accepted. Concerns about easements and poten­tial lawsuits were also raised by the public.

Eureka attorney Bill Bar­num said the whole idea of railbanking is meant to kill railroads in the county.

“This is a target shot at rail around Humboldt Bay,” Bar­num said. “It’s 100 percent political.” The supervisors ultimately voted 4-0, with 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith absent, to send a letter to NCRA requesting it form a committee to look into rail­banking. However, that was after the supervisors altered the proposed letter to state that supporting the commit­tee’s creation doesn’t preclude the board from supporting other railway projects.

Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg and 4th Dis­trict Supervisor Virginia Bass voiced concerns about sup­porting the formation of a committee before hearing presentations from other groups, such as the group interested in seeing an East-West Railroad built.

Third District Supervisor Mark Lovelace said just because the board supports the idea of forming a com­mittee, doesn’t mean it’s tak­ing sides on the railbanking issue. He said it’s up to the NCRA to decide if it wants to form the committee and ulti­mately up to the committee to investigate whether rail­banking is a good idea.

“We’re sending a letter to ask someone to form a com­mittee to study something,” Lovelace said. “That’s not killing the rail or building a trail.”

Read Original Article

6/26/12

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — in a unanimous decision — handed the U.S. EPA a sweeping victory in upholding across the board four separate components of the agency’s rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  The opinion can be found here.

A little background is in order here.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA directed the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act.  The Bush Administration had refused to make such a finding despite petitions from states and environmental groups asking that emissions be regulated.  The rules that are subject to today’s ruling — the case is called Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA — are the direct result of the Supreme Court’s Mass v. EPA decision.

EPA’s first decision was to find — as required under the Clean Air Act as interpreted in Mass v EPA — that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.  The D.C. Circuit  found that the EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it made its endangerment finding.

EPA’s next decision was to issue what is known as the “tailpipe rule.”  The tailpipe rule establishes greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act.  What is somewhat odd about the challenge to the tailpipe rule in the new Coalition for Responsible Regulation case is that the challengers to the rule are not auto companies but are instead largely made up of businesses that operate what are known as “stationary sources,” — factories that emit pollutants.  They argued that the EPA should not have issued the tailpipe rule regulating greenhouse gases from cars because if the agency did so, the next obvious step under separate provisions of the Clean Air Act would be that the agency would have to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.  That’s because once pollutants are regulated under one provision of the act the new regulation triggers other provisions of the act.  Industry argued that the cost implications of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources were so large that the EPA should not have regulated tailpipe emissions. The court rejected this argument, holding instead that the EPA lacked any discretion at all in setting tailpipe emissions once it found that that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.  In other words, the Clean Air Act required the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions – the agency had no choice.

The third and fourth rules that are at issue in today’s case are called the “timing” and “tailoring” rules.  These rules together work roughly as follows:  regulation of greenhouse gases for automobiles automatically triggers a different section of the Clean Air Act, what is known as the prevention of significant deterioration section (PSD). That section basically requires the EPA to regulate the emissions of any “major” source of a “regulated” pollutant.  ”Major” is defined in the Clean Air Act to regulate any source that emits 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant.  The problem for the EPA is that the 100 tons per year amount would subject very, very small sources (a single home, perhaps, certainly apartment buildings and small businesses) to the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act, something that those small sources have never had to comply with and that would be extremely expensive and administratively burdensome.  So in the “tailoring” rule, the EPA only subjected large sources — new sources emitting 100,000 tons per year or more and existing sources making modifications that would increase emissions by 75,000 tons per year or more — to its greenhouse gas rules.  Industry challenged both the application of the Clean Air Act to stationary sources and the tailoring rule as an impermissive interpretation of the Clean Air Act.  In today’s ruling, the court found that the EPA is legally justified — indeed required — to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the PSD provisions of the act.  But it also found that none of the plaintiffs in the case — which included industry groups and states like Texas that oppose the regulations —  have standing to challenge the rules.  That means that the plaintiffs do not meet constitutional requirements to bring a case in court.  More specifically, the court found, the plaintiffs have not been injured by a rule that exempts small sources from regulation even if the larger businesses themselves will be subject to regulation.  This finding is somewhat ironic because industry for years has challenged the standing of environmental plaintiffs to challenge various government rules and the Supreme Court has tightened standing rules over the years.  Those tighter rules were used today to limit industry’s ability to challenge rules that don’t directly apply to them.

It seems safe to predict that the legal battles over the greenhouse gas rules are far from over.  Expect plaintiffs to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.  If the high court agrees to take the case, my bet is that the standing portion of the case is the most vulnerable:  if the Supreme Court finds that industry and states have standing to sue, then the whole question of the legality of the timing and tailoring rules will be back in front of the D.C Circuit to decide on their merits.   But for today, this is a huge victory for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Read Original Article

6/26/12

Morro Bay has received national recognition for its efforts to preserve its historic fishing industry.

The city is one of four coastal governments to receive the 2012 Walter B. Jones Memorial Award for Excellence in Coastal and Ocean Management. The awards are given every two years by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to honor noteworthy contributions to protecting and improving coasts and coastal communities.

Specifically, Morro Bay is recognized for its innovative work with commercial fishermen, The Nature Conservancy and other coastal communities to rebuild the town’s fishing industry in a more sustainable fashion after many of the West Coast’s fisheries collapsed a decade ago.

“In a time when fisheries quotas are being consolidated and landings funneled to larger ports, it is important to keep Morro Bay a viable working waterfront,” said Andrea Lueker, Morro Bay city manager.

Steps taken by the city and its partners to revitalize the fishing industry include diversifying gear types, experimenting with new gear designs to minimize environmental impacts and forming a Morro Bay Community Quota Fund to set and maintain groundfish quotas on the Central Coast. As a result of these efforts, the value of catches landed in Morro Bay has doubled.

One of the more controversial aspects of the effort was partnering with environmental group The Nature Conservancy, which bought all of Morro Bay’s trawl fishing fleet and permits. Many fishermen were reluctant to work with the group.

“This work has not been easy,” said Michael Bell, marine project director for The Nature Conservancy. “These leaders have faced huge obstacles in their effort to try a new model.”

The city was nominated for the award by Adrienne Harris, executive director of the Morro Bay National Estuary Program. No awards ceremony is planned as a cost-saving measure, Harris said.

Other governments to receive the national honor this year are the Port of Anacortes, Wash.; Naples, Fla.; and Plymouth, N.C.

Read More

6/24/12

Eliminating the railroad tracks around Humboldt Bay to create a trail will be one of the topics of discus­sion Tuesday at the Hum­boldt County Board of Supervisors meeting.



At 9:30 a.m., the board will discuss whether it wants to ask the North Coast Railroad Authority — a group formed by the state Legislature in 1989 to protect rail infra­structure — to support form­ing a committee to examine the possibility of creating a trail around Humboldt Bay to replace the railroad tracks.



Second District Supervisor Clif Clendenen, who serves as a director on the North Coast Railroad Authority, is bring­ing the item before the board for discussion on behalf of a citizen group interested in the project. Clendenen said the idea of creating a trail where the rail lines run from Eureka to Arcata and Samoa is an idea that has been around for years.



“It’s a good time to have a good, larger discussion,” Clendenen said. “The rail isn’t being used right now.” According to supporters, the rail lines in Humboldt haven’t been used since 1997. As a way to both protect the rail corridor and make use of it, supporters are proposing to “railbank” the land. Con­gress created the term “rail­banking” in 1983 when it amended the National Trails System Act. When a railroad corridor is railbanked, the land is allowed to be convert­ed into a trail.



What’s special about rail­banking, Clendenen said, is that it preserves the railroad’s right-of-way, meaning the trail can be converted back to a railroad in the future.



“Were there ever to be a need for rail again, that rever­sion would be possible,” Clen­denen said.



Supporters are suggesting the right-of-way, which is owned by the North Coast Railroad Authority, be trans­formed into a paved, multi­modal path that could be part of the California Coastal Trail — an under-construction network of public trails stretching along the 1,200­mile California coast.



As part of the plan, sup­porters are also in favor of restoring the rail line from Arcata to Samoa/Fairhaven so a tourist train can be oper­ated on the existing tracks. The idea is that the attraction would support the Timber Heritage Association’s pro­posed Redwood Heritage Museum in Samoa. The non­profit association collects equipment and other items pertaining to the North Coast’s logging industry. Some artifacts are currently on display at the Samoa Roundhouse and nearby harbor shops.

Funding for such a plan has yet to be identified, and at this stage the citizen group — comprised of Dennis Rael, Rees Hughes, Judy Hodgson and Don Banducci — is look­ing to form a committee to figure out how to proceed.

Humboldt County Associa­tion of Governments Execu­tive Director Marcella Clem said the citizen group sought support from the HCAOG board Thursday to move for­ward with the committee idea. The HCAOG board is largely responsible for county transportation projects.

“Our board would like that the individual cities look at it first,” Clem said.

There are concerns about the proposed idea, including any potential impact to the wetlands surrounding the railroad tracks. If this moves forward, Clendenen said, the plan needs to include an alter­nate plan that addresses what happens to the trail if it reverts to a railroad. If this happens, it needs to be deter­mined whether the trail will simply disappear or be relo­cated next to the tracks — creating concerns about the need for wetland mitigation.

In addition to discussing future rail plans, the supervi­sors will likely adopt the final fiscal year 2012-2013 budget.

According to a county staff report, the total county budg­et up for adoption totals approximately $281.1 mil­lion. After the budget hear­ings June 11, the board direct­ed county staff to add an additional part-time position to the district attorney’s office.

The county administrative office worked with the DA’s office to unfreeze two office assistant positions by utilizing extra-help funding and sup­plemental funding, according to a staff report. Staff also dis­covered that a lieutenant position in the sheriff’s department should have been unfrozen but wasn’t. As a result, the final budget is about $420,000 more than the proposed budget.

Changes in grant funding and building maintenance needs contributed to the increase.

For the complete board of supervisors meeting agenda and supporting documents, go online to www.co. humboldt.ca.us/board/ agenda/questys/.

For more information about the Humboldt Bay rail and trail group, go online to www.baytrailplan.org.

Read Original Article