Highlights, despite the tin foil hat crowd thinking they had another controversy, a simple clerical error happened. You see they were just busy with compiling all the comments and other paperwork to send to the consultants for the Harbor plan. The courtesy email wasn’t sent out. It had nothing to do with the NCRA giving a presentation.
Commissioner Hunter defended himself and vowed to continue the cold storage business,
Three other commissioners defended commissioner Hunter.
Hat’s off to the Eye for continuing to endure the meetings to give us the news.
UPDATE: The article, even the version I ran through the English to Pirate converter, has been removed due to threats of legal action. Sorry but I thought it was funny after being called a pirate, to run it through the converter. The question is, how much/many changes do you do to an item before it is not longer you IP? It is a bit sad, what happens to these articles when they are pulled offline?
Be sure an’ click th’ link fer th’ real article
Ya horn swogglin’ scurvy cur!
For the the person who disputed my view of Ammonia as being efficient. Your only half right. Your talking the efficiency of the pumps, I’m talking the efficiency of the medium. Yes by updating the pumps you will make a more efficient system, but that doesn’t take away the efficiency of the medium. Electric motors are still very efficient, even if old. There is a reason ammonia is used as a heat transfer medium.
So on to the article, by a person who is sue happy. The reason places get closed down.
Notice the irony, when he wants Commissioner Hunter to work day and night to ensure and fund a contingency plan. The same person who would sue if Eureka Ice would continue on. The same person in favor of increased regulations, making it harder, and more expensive for these fishermen and others to survive. How do you survive servicing an industry that the product maybe unavailable to harvest? Do you upgrade or let it go?
Except he has another job, plus the Harbor District, plus volunteering. Lets drop everything to work on this. He didn’t want another thing on his plate. There is a point of overload. Commissioner Hunter has only been involved for about five months now, so the January plan isn’t his fault. Word is that he didn’t go to the 1st meeting with environmental health, because his brother said it wasn’t necessary.
The boat that sunk. Dirty diesel Pete Nichols says it should of been Commissioner Hunter’s fines. It doesn’t work that way, the current owner should of been aware of it’s condition, and put it on land. Remember diesel is only bad when your opponent uses it, not when you use it.
In short this was a speech to assign blame, and a political speech on the misfortunes of others. Pete says says he wants to help out, yet never does support any job opportunity.
These environmental types keep saying we will get more jobs by increasing the parks, by the intrinsic value. Yet, we keep suffering. Maybe it is time for a revolution.
Pete Nichols/My Word/For the Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/25/2008 02:15:49 AM PDTIn 2005, Humboldt County Environmental Health informed Eureka Ice of issues related to the safety of the operation, stating that failure to address these problems would pose a significant risk to public health and the environment. No action was taken at that time by Eureka Ice to remedy these serious issues. In January of this year, the county laid out a plan for Eureka Ice to come into compliance and to avoid, as noted by an EPA official, “… a threat to the surrounding community” from the release of anhydrous ammonia gas into the Old Town area. The response from Eureka Ice was a five-year plan that failed to address any of the issues raised by the county or the EPA.
Now, due to the blatant negligence of Hunter Enterprises, led by Dennis Hunter — president of the Humboldt Bay Harbor District — the community, and the fishing community in particular, are left to fend for themselves for cold storage and a steady supply of ice to support their already economically-challenged fishery. How could a representative of the governing body charged with maintaining the health and viability of the commercial fishery here around Humboldt Bay be so negligent in managing the most basic of his duties and responsibilities as a business owner, employer, and public official?
Worse yet, with crab season on the horizon, Mr. Hunter has offered no solution to the problem. One would think that he would be working day and night to ensure, and fund, a contingency plan to be enacted until a more permanent solution is put in place. To date, we have heard nothing beyond that another former Hunter Enterprises decrepit fishing vessel has sunk at the dock, spilling diesel and its associated toxic stew into Humboldt Bay, and that Hunter Enterprises has dodged the massive fines that could/should have been his fate.
So, once again, the onus falls upon the fishermen to seek a solution. Many local fishing representatives have approached the city of Eureka to act as the savior for this impending crisis. While the city may be well intentioned, I believe that their efforts will fall short of meeting the needs of the fishing community over the long-term. It is time for the fishing community (the Humboldt Fishermen’s Marketing Association, in particular) to follow the lead of many of their colleagues throughout the Pacific Northwest to pursue operating and maintaining a cold storage facility — for the fishing industry, by the fishing industry.
There are many successful examples of cooperative cold storage and ice facilities from Seattle to Sitka, and there is no reason why our local fishing leaders should not take this opportunity to free themselves from the reliance on third parties to support and market their product. Creating and maintaining their own facilities will empower the fishing industry, create a sense of ownership and pride surrounding their product, and produce some of those ever-illusive jobs that the Harbor District keeps promising to deliver.
In many a crisis lays opportunity, and I believe this is one opportunity that the fishing community should seize upon. There are existing models to bring cooperative cold storage to ailing fishing communities. Most of these ventures are not so fortunate as to have institutions in place that could provide financial support to 1) provide immediate relief for the current crisis; and 2) secure funds to implement the long-term vision of a modern, fishermen-run community cold-storage facility.
The Headwaters Fund was designed, and is uniquely situated, to accomplish both of these tasks. In the wake of funding the boondoggle of the Redwood Marine Terminal feasibility study and business plan, one would think that they would see the development of a cooperative cold storage facility as both a refreshing and realistic opportunity to fulfill the Headwaters Fund’s mission.
The Humboldt Bay community is best served by maintaining and supporting a strong fishing fleet. Not only is it our heritage, but it is one of the best suited industries for this region. Commercial fishermen are famously independent and self-reliant, and once again it has fallen to them to control their own fate. This may be a blessing in disguise, since the last place their fate should lay is in the hands of the Humboldt Bay Harbor District.
Pete Nichols is the executive director of Humboldt Baykeeper and the Pacific Northwest representative to the board of directors of the International Waterkeeper Alliance. He resides in Eureka.
It is on the RAPIT/Humboldt Green Port blog, which hasn’t shown up yet on the Humboldt Blog pipe yet.
Strangely, despite Mike Buttner’s post, he hasn’t shown up yet.
development of Humboldt Bay as an industrial port. Speakers will include:
David Hull, CEO, Humboldt Bay Harbor District.
A representative from Ports America AIG.
A legislative representative from the ILWU (longshoremen’s union).
Mitch Stogner, executive director, North Coast Railroad Authority.
Humboldt Bay Mariculture industry leaders.
This industry-driven forum is being held to garner support for the development of the Redwood Marine Terminal Project, which would bring an industrialized container shipping facility to Humboldt Bay. This project will bring with it a host of environmental problems with it including impacts to the Bay from increased dredging, unregulated air pollution, and unregulated water quality impacts from ballast water and increased the likelihood of a major oil spill occurring in Humboldt Bay that would devastate the Bay and the coastal waters.
Run for you lives everybody! Problem is there is no such thing as unregulated anything. California has it’s own regulations on ballast water, IE it should be exchanged in the ocean. Sad, sad, foaming at the mouth like this.
I’m recording this one.
We had to add a couple of rows of chairs for everybody.
Update:
Various postings about the port and rail the past few days:
Heraldo, the only green is being a cave man.
Heraldo, I hate growth of the port.
Samoa Softball, how much to restore the railroad, and a view of the forum. I’m sorry but their view missed quite a few Items.
Mike the problem with your article, it it doesn’t mention anything about bridges, etc. The canyon isn’t easily accessible, making it more expensive to remove.
Who would take charge of any trail? That is needed to keep the bridges, etc. The slides will have to be stabilized for a trail.
Mark: “Robin was disturbed by the postcard saying “I support environmentally responsible development. Let’s make ours the first GREEN port and railroad in America.” She felt it was bold statement with no back-up information to back up this. What qualifies this statement? What makes our potential developed bay green, and what makes other ports not green.”
The answer is we do not have any port machinery, and thus do not have any costs to replace it. We can stat with new ideas, new green tech. Did you not catch that we can dictate how much green tech the operator uses?
“If that is the case, why did they skirt around the question of erosion during dredging and release of ballast organism.”
Dave covered both. Ballast water exchanges are mandated by California’s regulation. Dredging is mostly done in the entrance, annually, and funded by the feds. The erosion was shown to be inclusive.
“And where on the card is the mention of the RAPIT forum?”
The card isn’t just for the forum, it was to help gather comments from those who support both port development, and wanting to make it green. This is our port too, we have to live with it too.
“I had thought that someone on the panel would be from organized labor. Nope. Let us try this again. Maybe more organized.”
Sid Berg did give a speech.
Plus to add I think “Lee Sandahl, Legislative Representative for the ILWU (Longshoremen’s
Union), will answer questions regarding the political environment
surrounding port investment and job opportunities associated with an active
port.” was there.
Good old Ernie even has a pro-rail post.
The Eureka Reporter has an article like usual, before the Times-Standard. Why is the Times-Standard usually late with local news?
Website: Humboldt Bay Green Port, blog
Published: Aug 17 2008, 12:05 AM · Updated: Aug 17 2008, 12:07 AM
Category: Local News
Topic: Humboldt BayThe Humboldt County Rail and Port Infrastructure Taskforce will be hosting a free informational forum Wednesday at the Wharfinger Building at 5:30 p.m.
The forum will explore many of the important issues regarding the revitalization of a green port in Humboldt Bay, and collect public comment regarding the potential opportunities and challenges that such a project would bring to Northern California.
Special guests will include:
+ David Hull, CEO, Humboldt Bay Harbor District.
+ A representative from Ports America AIG.
+ A legislative representative from the ILWU (longshoremen’s union).
+ Mitch Stogner, executive director, North Coast Railroad Authority.
+ Humboldt Bay Mariculture industry leaders.
This is the first in a series of public forums that will be presented by RAPIT in an effort to gather broad community input, disseminate accurate information and build consensus regarding the future of the bay.
Future Sessions will include:
+ Defining “green” in port revitalization, a community visioning exercise.
+ Understanding bay ecosystems, challenges and opportunities with port revitalization.
+ The future of alternative energy in Humboldt County.
+ Green port revitalization project status update.
+ Humboldt County and the economics of globalization.
Thanks to gCaptain for the heads up. Makes it easy to find these gems.
At least 185 non-native aquatic species have been identified in the Great Lakes, and ballast water is blamed for the introduction of most—including the notorious zebra and quagga mussels and two species of gobies.
This week, the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. will implement new rules designed to reduce Great Lakes invaders. Ships will be required to flush ballast tanks with salt water before entering the Seaway, a practice corporation officials describe as an interim measure, not a final solution.
Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would force freighters to install costly onboard sterilization systems to kill foreign organisms in ballast water. The systems use filters, ultraviolet irradiation, chemical biocides and other technologies, and can cost more than $500,000.
The U-M ballast-free ship concept offers a promising alternative that could block hitchhiking organisms while eliminating the need for expensive sterilization equipment, said Michael Parsons, professor of naval architecture and marine engineering and co-leader of the project.
“There is no silver bullet. But the ballast-free ship has the potential to be an economic winner while addressing the ballast problem in a serious way,” Parsons said.
Ships take on ballast water for stability when they’re not carrying cargo. They discharge ballast when they load freight, expelling tons of water and anything else—from pathogenic microbes to mollusks and fish—that’s in it.
Instead of hauling potentially contaminated water across the ocean, then dumping it in a Great Lakes port, a ballast-free ship would create a constant flow of local seawater through a network of large pipes, called trunks, that runs from the bow to the stern, below the waterline.
“In some ways, it’s more like a submarine than a surface ship,” Parsons said. “We’re opening part of the hull to the sea, creating a very slow flow through the trunks from bow to stern.
“You’re continuously sweeping water through the ship and out,” he said. “So you’re always filled with local sea water, not hauling water from one part of the world to the other.”
The U-M ballast-free ship concept was conceived in 2001 and patented in 2004. It is intended for new-vessel construction only.
With funding from the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, Parsons and his colleagues recently built a 16-foot, $25,000 wooden scale model of an oceangoing bulk carrier to test the concept.
The work is underway at the U-M Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory’s towing tank, the oldest facility of its kind that is owned by a U.S. educational institution.
In addition to helping fine tune the design, results from the latest round of tank tests and computer simulations suggest the ballast-free ship will deliver an unforeseen benefit. The design appears to provide a significant savings—possibly as much as 7.3 percent—in the power needed to propel the ship.
For a 650-foot bulk carrier hauling 32,000 metric tons of cargo from the Great Lakes to Europe and back, that translates into a roundtrip fuel savings of roughly $150,000. A report on the latest test results, including their economic implications, will be published next month in the Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
In upcoming towing tests, tentatively set for late June, the naval engineers will try to confirm and explain the unexpected power savings. Most of the improvement is likely due to the fact that water expelled from the stern-end of the trunks “smoothes out the flow” into the propeller, allowing it to operate more efficiently, Parsons said.
“It’s a huge power reduction, a hard-to-believe improvement in power, and we have to convince ourselves that all of it is real,” he said.
Building an oceangoing bulk carrier can cost $70 million. The added construction costs of the ballast-free design—for extra hull steel, trunk-isolation valves, piping and welding—would be more than offset by eliminating the filtration system and the ballast tanks.
The researchers conclude that the new design would result in a net capital-cost savings of about $540,000 per ship. Combined with the expected fuel savings, total cargo transport costs would be cut by $2.55 per metric ton.
“It seems that, compared to other ballast treatment systems, it’s a viable alternative,” SUNY Maritime College engineer Miltiadis Kotinis said of the ballast-free ship concept.
“We have proven that the technical part is feasible and that it can be applied to new vessel construction,” said Kotinis, a collaborator on the project and a U-M alumnus. “And we have also shown that, regarding the economics, it can reduce the operating cost and reduce or even eliminate the introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species.”
Let’s see here, since this was about the biased forum. The toxic lady, drives a car, on asphalt roads. She didn’t cover the pollution from the roads, increased need to repair them since the railroad is shut down, with the great oil based asphalt, oil for her tires, which wears down, and pollutes the watersheds, oil in the car, the older it gets, more likely it pollutes. She probability doesn’t a EV. Don’t forget the impenetrability of the roads to water, increasing the flooding potential. It is great, go to their web site for pictures of “poison poles” known in the real world as utility poles. The dirty diesels, at the balloon track.
Yet lets look at the railroad, the so called toxic ties, that people like to steal for landscaping. If they are so toxic, why do people use them for landscaping?
No mention of the alternatives to the ties she hates Concrete would last 50 years. Ties are what hold the tracks in gauge. Name a road that would last 50 years. Why if the ties are so bad, isn’t the eel river also polluted? It is much more length of track along side it.
No mention to the modern locomotives, that would reduce pollution, in all area, air, sound, and reduced fuel usage. No mention that those locomotives are not owned by the NCRA. No mention that those locomotives could be converted over to green goats or the road version. or otherwise upgraded.
The rail don’t have to be replaced except due to wear, unlikely breakage, or needing to upgrade the capacity. You know what happens on replacing because of wear? You switch positions of the rail. It is mainly the inside corner of the rail that gets the worst wear due to the flanges. By switching it, you have a new inside corner. Steel shaving are not considered toxic.
The railroad unlike the road or the trail, is open, allowing water to seep through, reducing flooding.
Now the so called baykeeper. There is already ships coming in. Yet increasing frequency automatically makes it 100% chance of a spill. These same large ships also pump ballast water in and out.
CA ballast water regulations Notice article 4.6 is not under proposed regulations.
Section 2284. Ballast Water Management Requirements
(a) The master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel that arrives at a
California port or place from another port or place within the Pacific Coast
Region shall employ at least one of the following ballast water
management practices:
(1) Exchange the vessel’s ballast water in near-coastal waters, before
entering the waters of the state, if that ballast water has been taken
on in a port or place within the Pacific Coast region.
(2) Retain all ballast water on board the vessel.
(3) Use an alternative, environmentally sound method of ballast water
management that, before the vessel begins the voyage, has been
approved by the commission or the United States Coast Guard as
being at least as effective as exchange, using mid-ocean waters, in
removing or killing nonindigenous species.
(4) Discharge the ballast water to a reception facility approved by the
commission.
(5) Under extraordinary circumstances where compliance with
subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section is not practicable,
perform a ballast water exchange within an area agreed to by the
commission in consultation with the United States Coast Guard at
or before the time of the request.
Oil spills. A three million gallon barge supplies most of our fuel, and comes in every month to month and a half. We have boats, that at one of the harbor meetings was said, you can stick you foot through and sink it. We have oil leaks from cars, and trucks, etc. We have had heavy port traffic in the past, and little spills. The oyster growers at the meetings were in support of of the harbor development. Yet we are worried about potential spills?
By Dennis Hunter
Published: Aug 8 2008, 12:03 AM
Category: OpinionWe have an opportunity staring us right in the face. What we do with it will shape the future of our area for many years to come.
I serve as a Commissioner on the board of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (HBHRCD) and take my responsibilities very seriously. When the District was formed by the State of California in 1970, our enabling legislation mandated us to “develop, operate, maintain, control, regulate and manage Humboldt Bay for the promotion of national and international commerce, navigation, fisheries and recreation thereon, and develop and protect the natural resources of the area.” For me, this means that when I look at a potential project, I ask three questions: (1) Will this protect and enhance our natural environment? (2) Will this project create decent-paying jobs? And, (3) will this project help stimulate the local economy? If the answers are “yes,” then it’s something I seriously consider. Restoring the Redwood Marine Terminal to active maritime use potentially meets those criteria.
Additional future shipping opportunities on Humboldt Bay will not be by the steamships of a bygone era. New and upcoming air quality standards mandated by the state of California and the federal government; the designs of modern ocean-going ships that can include double hulls, filtered ballast water, low sulfur fuels and shoreside electrical capability — can translate to a vast reduction in the ecological footprint of modern port operations. In addition, any restoration of the Redwood Marine Terminal property will result in an improvement to the environment by the removal of hundreds of creosote-treated pilings from the bay, eliminating storm water runoff to the bay from this property and generally cleaning up this long-used industrial property.
What about jobs? Based upon the port activity estimated in the Redwood Marine Terminal Feasibility Study, the terminal could potentially create an average of 200 full-time direct jobs and 1,800 full-time indirect jobs at an average wage of $35 per hour. This would inject over $145 million into the local economy as payroll. Thus, more and more families could afford to buy above-median-priced homes and could send their children to college.
Let’s look at how this terminal could affect our area economically. We have a significant amount of industrial and commercial land that is not being put to any use. These properties will be in strong demand as the port grows. This projected growth increases property values which generate more property taxes which generate more revenues for the county and cities.
There has been a lot of discussion lately about the possible development of our Redwood Marine Terminal and the increase in shipping this would create. Some might say this is a pipe dream while others might see this as an opportunity to stimulate the local economy and create good-paying jobs. As commissioners, we owe our populace the due diligence to totally examine all the possibilities. That is why we hired a world-class transportation consulting firm to analyze potential restoration opportunities and develop feasibility and business plan recommendations.
As we consider this potential development, the solution seems simple. It’s not. Our Board of Commissioners is diligently looking into the draft Business Plan as submitted by its consultants. We’re also taking public comments through the 28th of August. There are questions still to be answered, but the bottom line is: we must work to grow our economy, create new jobs and protect our natural resources. I am confident that, as a community, we can accomplish all three things.
Dennis Hunter is a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District.
Dear Editor,
I’ve been a resident of the Humboldt Bay area for more than 35 years. I grew up in Los Angeles and moved to this area because it is so beautiful. I do not want a replica of Southern California up here; however, I support the marine terminal business plan.
Earlier this year, yet another group of graduates faced low-paying, non-benefited jobs or a few highly prized government jobs. With low-paying jobs, we cannot support our own infrastructure, let alone government jobs.
Port and rail revitalization can bring many living-wage job opportunities to workers of this area. I believe that this port can be upgraded in an ecologically sensitive manner. New buildings and dock could be solar- and wind-powered, fitted with gray water systems and have garden roofs. No matter who leases facilities from the Harbor District, we can establish our own conditions. If we don’t like the terms, as landlords we can find a new operator. We control our own destiny.
I see no reason to fear the future and reject positive solutions for our area. Why is there so much negativity surrounding revitalization of a dilapidated, unusable existing dock?
The Harbor District’s Web site states it is responsible for transportation improvement projects and increasing the cargo-handling capacity of the bay. The Harbor District commissioners need to remember their legislative mandates and move forward in a timelier manner.
A working port benefits everyone.
Cynthia Noble
Fieldbrook
The question is who will be the speakers? Will we have photoshop Bit/Mike Buettner with his one sided view? IE the person who wouldn’t spend a dime on the railroad, quoted at the trails forum? The one spreading nothing but FUD? “We can only plan together by working together” What garbage, it isn’t a new plan. If you look at Humboldt Bay only about 15% can be developed, yet they are screaming about balance!
Looking at the Future of Humboldt Bay
as an International Shipping TerminalThe Humboldt Bay Stewards invites you to join us at this community forum
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Wharfinger Building
1 Marina Way in Eureka6:30-8:30pm
Join us in exploring the proposed Redwood Dock Marine Terminal that the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District is negotiating with Goldman Sachs.
Our speakers will summarize the project and discuss the impacts on the natural resources and societal values of our community.
An opportunity for questions and answers will follow the presentations.
The goal of the evening is to engage the community in this important decision for our future.
We can only plan together by working together.
