April 28, 2004

Humboldt Bay Harbor District
P.O. Box 1030
Eureka, CA 95502-1030

Eureka City Council
531 K Street
Eureka, CA 95501-1165

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
825 5th Street, Room 111
Eureka, CA 95501

Re: Humboldt Bay Revitalization Plan

Dear Board, Council, and Harbor District Members,

The Environmental Protection Information Center, Humboldt Watershed Council, Humboldt Watch, Salmon Forever, Northcoast Environmental Center, Eureka Homeowners Committee, and Redwood Alliance (collectively, "EPIC") jointly submit the following comments for your consideration in the Harbor Revitalization Plan Advisory Committee's "visioning process" for Humboldt Bay.

As one of the most pristine estuaries on the West Coast, Humboldt Bay stands as a spectacular centerpiece in our community. EPIC believes the irreplaceable values of Humboldt Bay can become an integral part of a sustainable future for the North Coast region--one that is based on a high quality of life and a healthy environment and economy. However, EPIC believes the "Revitalization Plan" released in February 2003 would steer our region far from this course, and, based on lack of public input and other deficiencies, that this plan should be withdrawn and this process begun anew. Additional comments on these issues as well as EPIC's preliminary comments on promoting and establishing a sustainable economy follow.

Introduction

A healthy, natural environment is the foundation for any stable economy, with clean air, clean water, and stunning visual landscapes providing added benefits that dramatically improve the quality of life for all people. EPIC believes the best way to stimulate the economy and improve the quality of life is by encouraging the production of goods and products that are marketed, sold, and utilized within the local region in which they are produced. Ultimately, this approach benefits the environment, produces more jobs, and holds many other benefits to community members.

The Revitalization Plan is based on a framework that is exactly the opposite this vision, planning instead to import and export raw products to be produced and/or sold in faraway locations. EPIC believes this would not only destroy the opportunity to restore native fisheries and other important habitat, but also the chance for a locally-based, and ultimately sustainable, economy to take hold.


Why the Revitalization Plan Must Be Withdrawn

Projects Identified Are Incompatible

The Advisory Committee released its "Revitalization Plan" in February 2003 without soliciting public review or input. The Plan is premised on developing a deep water, industrial port in Humboldt Bay, identifying the importation and exportation of raw materials as its primary goal and emphasis. Since it was released, our community has resoundingly rejected two of the major development prospects it identified: the Mad Water Grab and a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility.

The "most promising opportunity" identified in the Revitalization Plan is "marine-dependent industrial projects," which "are essentially manufacturing facilities requiring a major marine shipping component, either to bring in raw materials or to ship out finished products." Its other primary emphasis is on the importation/exportation of gravel, water, and lumber. This direction would not only destroy fish habitat, cause air pollution, and degrade other public trust values, but would also harm local businesses.

The shores and waters of Humboldt Bay have not been spared from all impacts, but today it offers unsurpassed opportunities to recover and restore its fisheries, estuaries, and other natural aspects, with the ability to create a sustainable, locally-based economy that is founded on these principles. Scarcity plays a major role in establishing economic value, and the relatively unspoiled condition of Humboldt Bay provides the local populace with an exceedingly rare "commodity"--a largely intact, ecologically functioning coastal estuarine ecosystem. Given this and its proximity to ancient redwoods, historic Victorian architecture, and Humboldt State University, the Humboldt Bay region is extremely well positioned to become a prime location for recreation, tourism, and scientific research. The Revitalization Plan notes this fact, but in concentrating on attracting industries described above, overlooks the opportunities that exist.


The Cart is Before the Horse: Dredging and the Deep Water Port

One of the primary problems is that the Revitalization Plan begins with the assumption that Humboldt Bay can, should, and will be developed into a deep-water port, then views the world of possibilities solely through this lens. This necessarily limits the alternatives and potential avenues of economic development that can be pursued. There is growing evidence showing that Humboldt Bay cannot accommodate a deep-water port as imagined, and if implemented, the Revitalization Plan would foreclose other options for our community.

For example, the Revitalization Plan states:

"[T]he Port's strategy for revitalization involves two phases: channel deepening and landside improvement." (sic).

Similarly, the Eureka City Council's April 23 notice for your April 28 meeting states:

"The purpose of the meeting will be for the HRP Advisory Committee to gather input and initiate a community dialog and visioning process that will engage the public in attempting to identify and prioritize acceptable industrial/commercial uses for the industrial/commercial portion of Humboldt Bay."

The Advisory Committee is implying that deep-water, industrial port development will occur, but has not allowed this decision to be vetted among the public. As discussed below, we believe this is contrary to CEQA and other laws, but we also believe there is evidence showing that Humboldt Bay is not an appropriate site for a deep-water port facility.

Recent evidence shows serious erosion and other problems are occurring since the channels of Humboldt Bay were deepened in 1999, and public costs for dredging have been substantial. As its threshold step, EPIC believes the Advisory Committee--in an open public process--should evaluate all relevant data and information to determine if Humboldt Bay can accommodate a deep-water port facility and if this is in the community's best interest.


The Revitalization Plan Violates CEQA

The Advisory Committee failed to include other agencies and the public in its formation of the Revitalization Plan, and for this and other reasons, failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. EPIC believes implementation of the Revitalization Plan is in violation of CEQA absent a full, programmatic review, and calls on the Advisory Committee to withdraw the Plan and initiate said review for any subsequent action.

The Revitalization Plan states there will be:

"[P]rogrammatic (plan-level) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviews when each government incorporates the Revitalization Plan's conclusions and recommendations into action plans that establish commitments to carry out the Plan."

This runs precisely contrary to a fundamental statutory requirement of CEQA, which requires that agencies undergo CEQA review "at the earliest possible stage, even though more detailed environmental review may be necessary later." Rio Vista Farm Bureau v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal. 4th 351, 370 (emphasis added). Pursuant to CEQA, "information relevant to significant effects of a project, alternatives, and mitigation measures which substantially reduce the effects shall be made available as soon as possible by lead agencies, other public agencies, and interested persons and organizations." Pub. Res. Code § 21003.1(b). Courts have held this means that information must be revealed at the earliest possible moment in the review process "where genuine flexibility remains." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988), 202 Cal. App. 3d 296.

Efforts are obviously underway to implement the Revitalization Plan, as evidenced by the proposals by Aqueous, Inc. to export water from the Mad River via Humboldt Bay and by Calpine Corporation to develop an LNG import facility and power plant. The ongoing implementation of this Plan is contrary to CEQA and the public trust responsibilities you hold.

Without including the public and other agencies in the initial stages of this process, the Advisory Committee effectively prevented disclosure of impacts at the point at which public input has, or is supposed to have, its highest influence. This process was contrary to law and EPIC urges the Committee to withdraw the Revitalization Plan and incorporate community input from the earliest stage of any subsequent action.


An Alternative Vision

The primary fact to consider when determining reasonable economic activities is that all human economic systems are subsystems of, and therefore are dependent on, the global ecosystem and its component local ecosystems. Human economic schemes require a healthy environment with a full and diverse complement of native species of plants and animals, as well as complete functioning of natural water and nutrient cycles, climate generation, and all other "free" ecological services.


What the EPIC Vision Includes

(1) All critical habitat areas on the Bay should be identified and permanently protected. Critical habitat areas are those necessary for maintaining viable populations of all native species, including existing natural areas as well as areas of potential restoration. All agencies that serve on the Advisory Committee should be working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge to its planned level. A comprehensive study of the biological systems of Humboldt Bay should be conducted to identify other critical habitat areas in need of protection and restoration, and options such as conservation easements and acquisition should be fully explored.

(2) All claims and requirements of the traditional Native American community of Humboldt Bay should first receive resolution before any development projects are considered. Additionally, EPIC believes that returning Indian Island to the Wiyot people and assisting in restoring this land should be a top priority.

(3) Finished, "value added" products that are substantially produced, marketed, distributed, and utilized within the local resource base are desirable economic endeavors. The Board of Supervisors, Harbor District, City of Eureka, and City of Arcata should facilitate the development of these types of enterprises, supporting and fostering within the local community the production of the goods, products, and services needed by the local community. Whether local wood products become fine furniture or a handcrafted boat, or locally caught fish and shellfish are processed in local facilities into canned or smoked goods, the completion of the production cycle at the local level maximizes the economic potential available to the local populace. Marketing and distributing these local goods, services, and products within the local region adds further economic benefits, increasing employment opportunities and the value of every dollar by keeping it within the local community for a longer period of time.

(4) Any extractive, resource based industry should be of a renewable nature and must be practiced within natural rates of replenishment. Specifically, commercial and recreational fishing, mariculture, and agriculture have very high potential as an economic base that is ecological at its core. Any such enterprise should be locally-owned and focused on providing for the local community, providing goods that are sold and distributed at local markets, restaurants, and other establishments.

(5) The restoration economy is of growing importance to Humboldt County, and should be encouraged to facilitate the above and also provide local jobs. Restoration jobs should pay living wages and be awarded to local firms, individuals, and entities. Top priorities should include: reclaiming salt marshes and sensitive dune habitat; restoring rare and endemic plant species; removing introduced, invasive species; restoring habitat for salmon, sturgeon, rockfish, and other native fish; and restoring habitat for the Olympic oyster and native clams.

(6) It should be a primary goal to find and implement long-term, sustainable solutions to meet energy supply problems, promoting and establishing local companies and non-profits that will ultimately make the Humboldt Bay region self-sufficient in providing for its energy needs. Studies indicate that using renewable sources of energy creates many more jobs than those based on fossil fuels. Producing and distributing this energy within the area in which it is utilized would expand employment opportunities further still, and ways to provide an infrastructure for this should be explored. The North Coast could not be better situated to accomplish these goals, with numerous entities and individuals working to develop and use alternative sources of energy and together, providing a deep pool of resources upon which to draw. Schatz Energy Research Center at Humboldt State University, Alternative Energy Engineering, Redwood Alliance, and other forward-thinking organizations and individuals should be brought together and consulted to form and implement this plan.

(7) All costs related to economic activity affecting Humboldt Bay should be borne by the economic entity involved. In economic terms, all externalities must be internalized by the firm. This includes clean air, water, and soil, as well as all human social costs (industrial disease-both physical and mental, etc.). If these costs are too great for the economic concerns to bear and still operate, then the market rejects the firm.

(8) Local control through economic democracy within private economic concerns ties the local residents/owners to their ecological fates as well as to their economic fates. In other words, local control by the employees of an economic firm are less likely to result in decisions with the worst ecological consequences because the decision makers may be affected by the results of their decisions. This is not a truism. Without doubt, local owners can make very bad decisions. Nevertheless, the decisions of many local owners of a firm might also be affected by the opinions of their neighbors. Private economic ownership models such as Employee Owned Stock Programs (ESOP), employee-owned and other types of cooperative businesses all have aspects of economic democracy.

(9) Tourism, light manufacturing, the arts and events, eco-tourism and adventure travel, the hospitality industry, and other possible economic endeavors must ALL operate within the bounds of the natural viability of the Bay ecosystem.

(10) The Board of Supervisors, Harbor District, and City of Eureka should utilize its vested power and authority to foster a local, sustainable economy. This includes pursuing zoning changes for large industrial sites and other areas where needed and reserving tax benefits, loan guarantees, granting programs, and other types of support for local businesses and enterprises described above.


What this Vision Does Not Include

(1) Use and dispersal of, or contamination with, toxic substances;

(2) Further deepening of the shipping channels;

(3) Additional development of the shoreline;

(4) Destruction of existing or potential critical habitat elements;

(5) Destruction of sacred sites or other Native American cultural areas;

(6) Development related activities that lead to loss of native species or other elements of biological diversity;

(7) Development related activities that lead to introduction of invasive exotic species;

(8) General development activity of municipalities, unincorporated areas, or upper watershed areas leading to adverse impacts to the Bay from contaminated runoff, sedimentation, herbicide/pesticide residues, human sewage, or other damaging inputs.

Conclusion

The many assets of the North Coast are invaluable and offer a unique opportunity to create a sustainable future for our region. This not only includes its magnificent natural environment and priceless public trust resources, but also an amazing human community that is comprised of innovative, resourceful, inventive individuals. This holds great promise to "think outside the box" and discover a different way of living within our local region. This promise should not be squandered or lost by spending our time and resources trying to make Humboldt Bay simply become a conduit for commerce to pass through our area, an approach that can only be destined to fail. Our staff, board, and members would like the opportunity to work with public officials and the community in exploring an alternative, farsighted path for our future.

We expect that this will be the first of many chances to provide input on this issue, and will appreciate the opportunity to expand on these ideas and submit additional comments at a later date.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

/s/

Cynthia Elkins
Program Director, EPIC

/s/

Larry Evans
President of the Board, EPIC

/s/

Mark Lovelace
Executive Director, Humboldt Watershed Council

/s/

Mike Buettner
Founder, Humboldt Watch

/s/

Dr. Ken Miller
President, Salmon Forever

/s/

Tim McKay
Executive Director, Northcoast Environmental Center

/s/

Ruth Jameson
Eureka Homeowners Committee

/s/

Michael Welch,
Redwood Alliance