Want to tell our elected Humboldt Bay Commissioners that it’s time to sack Goldman Sachs? Now’s your chance! Head down to the Woodley Island Meeting Room tonight (Wednesday, July 9) at 7pm.
The commission — formally known as the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District — will resume public comment on the Redwood Marine Terminal Business Plan.
At the last meeting, Commissioner Mike Wilson asked the board to “seriously consider” retracting an earlier decision to move forward with the Plan. Several speakers from the public agreed and said commissioners should remember the “Recreation and Conservation” part of their mission rather than focus on industrial development.
Kneeland resident Dave Spreen asks the following questions about the Plan:
1. What is the relationship of the RMT Business Plan to the deal being negotiated with Goldman Sachs? Will the Business Plan be in any way binding on the potential concessionaire?
2. From the RMT Feasibility Study Review of Public Comments, Feb 18, 2008, page 9:
3.8 Military Cargo
A number of comments objected to the potential handling of military cargo at any future terminal in Humboldt Bay. The military cargo segment was assessed in the study since it comprises one element of the overall cargo market. Military cargo on its own cannot support long term terminal development, which will have to be driven by commercial cargo, and military cargo is not viewed as critical to the future development of a terminal at Humboldt Bay.
Recommendation #17 in the original Task 3 report on military cargo has been removed.
However, the RMT Business Plan makes no mention of excluding military cargo. Is military cargo no longer excluded or are all cargos not specifically mentioned now excluded? For example, are nuclear materials or hazardous chemicals also excluded cargo from the RMT Business Plan since they are not specifically mentioned?
3. It is important to record in the official minutes of the HBHRCD Commissioners June 26 meeting that 80% of the public speakers were opposed to the RMT container port with freight rail project as outlined by the Business Plan. The minutes should also state that several speakers spoke for multiple organizations.
4. The Executive Summary (page 1 of business Plan) states, “The District retained TranSystems to conduct the Redwood Marine Terminal Feasibility Study for evaluation of best uses for this important Port asset.”
The above statement is not accurate. TranSystems was contracted to undertake a feasibility and business plan limited to an incomplete list of principle land uses. As a matter of fact, TranSystems admitted they excluded aquaculture as a principle land use in the feasibility study draft.
5. The Executive Summary also states (paragraph following Task 4 bullet) that the “District’s Board of Commissioners voted by majority” to move forward with Option B. That statement should more accurately read that the “District’s Board of Commissioners voted by a 3-2 majority” to proceed.
6. TranSystems and the HBHRCD have failed to respond to specific written requests for information. For example, my written requests for copies of the actual turning basin studies and the TranSystems feasibility study before being edited by HBHRCD staff have been ignored. My letter submitted June 26, 2008 requested verification of my calculations of freight train frequency based on data from the Business Plan.
7. Security costs (page 15) are inadequately delineated between the District and any potential concessionaire.
8. Employment data (page 15-16) is extremely general and lacks any numbers to validate unsubstantiated claims of living wage jobs. This is a crucial component of evaluating the public cost of the project and ongoing operation in the future.
9. Cruise ship predictions (tables 9-13, 14,15) are obviously unrealistic. Please consult the Humboldt Convention and Visitors Bureau.
10. The scale of the project and potential affect on the entire region suggests that others should be participating in the process; like cites, the county, other bay industries and stakeholders.
Need more background to prepare for tonight’s meeting? Go here.
Keep an eye on this critical issue at humboldtbaywatch.org.
July 9, 2008 at 7:04 am
Overall comments, written and oral, 82% are for port development, 62% for option b, 10% against both.
The problem with only including oral comments, is that it was hard for working people to make it, VS paid environmental shills.
July 9, 2008 at 7:05 am
Peace be with you Heraldo
Where is the “Woodley Island Meeting Room” at?
love eternal
tad
July 9, 2008 at 7:11 am
The Warfinger was packed with people at the last meeting. Sorry to break it to you but a lot of regular folk oppose industrialization/Goldman Sachsization of Humboldt Bay.
It’s in the same complex as the restaurant, on the left.
July 9, 2008 at 7:23 am
10%. I wasn’t able to attend to to a concert at the fair. 1st concert I’ve ever been to. Just don’t have endless time. We will see.
July 9, 2008 at 7:26 am
The only people who care about the Bay have “endless time?” No, Cap. They have their priorities straight.
July 9, 2008 at 7:45 am
capdiamont’s bogus support numbers are from before the Harbor District announced Goldman Sach’s financing proposal for a giant joint project combining the HD and the railroad.
But nevermind that. He wants “passenger rail,” so we should all talk about how cool it would be if that could happen again. Nevermind that that the plans say “never”.
July 9, 2008 at 8:01 am
Author: Joel Manly
Date: 07-07-2008 – 07:52
“Nearly 44% of the total individual comments were signatures on 2 form letters.”
July 9, 2008 at 8:30 am
Bogus? They are right out of the harbor district’s PDF.
44% comments didn’t have the time, or need to to submit something different. Are you saying they are invalid because they were form letters?
Everybody wants passenger rail. As I’ve said, figure out the need, make a plan, and work with the NCRA to make it happen.
No only people who a) don’t work, b) are paid environmental shills have the time to attend every meeting.
July 9, 2008 at 8:36 am
10% of overall individual comments were against port development. With all the ranting and raving, that was the best you could do.
July 9, 2008 at 8:38 am
Please show us any plans for passenger rail, Capdiamont. It seems to me that lumping people who want passenger rail in with those who favor the actual planned development is very misleading.
July 9, 2008 at 9:01 am
Heya Cap,
I am not employeed by an environ group, in fact, I bet I work longer hours than you. The problem with GS is that they take away the local alternatives for a port and people that are into local alternatives. There is another group of people looking to have the bay used for bulkbreak and barging to the bay area… a use suitable for its size and location…when the panama canal is widened the idea of overflow storage is not a viable money maker…a short sea shipping port would be a much more profitable alternative…and local.
July 9, 2008 at 9:19 am
If a corporation wanted to build a new Redwood dock, they would need money. That is where GS comes in – financing and their “union – teacher, etc” retirement funds gets loaned and makes money on the interest. If a corporation would come in now and take over land lease along with the tideland lease for the mud the dock sits on – it would get those leases for a lot less because they would be investing in the infrastructure themselves. If the Harbor District decided to build a new dock they would have bond funding to provide the money needed to build a new dock and they would get more money for that dock lease but might not have a taker. That is why it would be better for someone other than the Harbor District to want to come in and develop the infrastructure as that is the person that would be doing breakbulk and barging.
July 9, 2008 at 9:20 am
We aren’t talking about “every meeting,” just the last HBHRCD meeting, which was packed with local residents who oppose Goldman Sachs and single-minded industrialization of Humboldt Bay.
July 9, 2008 at 9:33 am
10%, must really bug you.
To be clear Jane, there is no passenger plans from the NCRA. NCRA is a freight agency.
On the south end you have SMART. Which people oppose for being expensive, and old tech. Some want Maglev, which is more expensive, and high tech.
On the North end, the only plan is for the tourist train, not commuter.
July 9, 2008 at 9:39 am
The State of California ceded the tidelands to the Harbor District so that harbor improvements could be done. Get informed and look up the enabling legislation. That is the job of the Harbor (not Bay) Commissioners. You want to be a Bay Commissioner, join an environmental group.
July 9, 2008 at 9:44 am
Counting people who want passenger service, which isn’t being offered, with those who want container port development and freight service for resource extraction and container movement is dishonest. What are the figures for people who understand they aren’t be asked about passenger service, but only freight? Why is there such an effort to make people think passenger service is part of the plan?
July 9, 2008 at 9:54 am
Jane, i have no idea, how your getting confused.
July 9, 2008 at 10:01 am
I am not confused Cap. But lots of people are. I know there is no passenger service planned. What percentage of people do? Even some of the commissioners are deliberately trying to mislead people into believing they are planning passenger service.
July 9, 2008 at 10:04 am
I’m not worried Jane. Once rail is restored for freight, people will demand that as long as rail is there, it be put to a better use.
July 9, 2008 at 10:05 am
LMAO 10:04! Good luck with that.
July 9, 2008 at 10:07 am
How are they doing so Jane? How can things be done better in regards to passenger rail?
July 9, 2008 at 10:10 am
I don’t think passenger rail is a possibility in the foreseeable future, Cap. I think the commission is deliberately misleading people and getting their hopes up, like 10:04 above and many others, when they know it isn’t going to happen.
July 9, 2008 at 10:29 am
Carlos lost by some 200 votes, elections have consequences. No one on the board is changing their mind based on any amount of public comment at a meeting. Their positions on this type of development were very clear during the elections.
I doubt any substantive GS proposal will be forthcoming until after Hunter comes up for reelection. At this point, the best compromise is to ensure the contract has a strong no penalty provision to terminate the relationship with Goldman Sachs without cause.
I think it would also be wise to have a provision to allow the Harbor District to independently pursue other, non-competitive projects at the same time. That’s probably too difficult to work out, but the negotiation process would show exactly how much control is being ceded to GS.
Since Hull has already been given authority to conduct negotiations, only Mike and Pat are in a position now to constructively influence the deal’s terms, before it is presented for approval. I hope they will continue to write editorials and speak to Eureka civic groups making the case to oust Hunter. We need another board member who favors here and now development rather than a nostalgic dream project that morphs into a colonial environmental nightmare.
July 9, 2008 at 10:56 am
Good thinking, NAN, I agree entirely.
Carlos lost because so many people still don’t understand port and harbor issues, except nostalgically. This will be a long-running education campaign. We have to focus on preventing as much damage as possible while the public learns what’s going on.
July 9, 2008 at 10:57 am
That’s not the point. The point is to make a big show, generate media stories about controversy and keep beating the drum until the next election. Politics is a circus.
July 9, 2008 at 12:29 pm
If our focus would stay on tourism and conservation this county might not get as rich as some folks want it to but we wouldn’t have some of the big problems of ship wrecks, oil spills, government entanglements etc. If we build and manintain eco-sustainability we improve our air and water quality and ensure that our grandchildren will have a healthy place to live, unlike what goes on in other port cities and counties.
July 9, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Kate, you got your wires crossed. If you promote tourism, that stirs up mention of passenger rail and cruise ships, and thus port development.
July 9, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Not if we stay focused on conservation
July 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm
make the Bay friendly to yachts and such, with hostels, funky restaurants and music halls that are unusual and draw the kinds of people who like the arts….not cruise ships, we don’t really want to be so irresponsible do we? We have the kinetics, good local music, murals and we need to encourage more of such to draw lots of people but keep our natural resources and treasures like beautiful mountain roads for people to drive along, beaches that need some clean-up, attractions of a natural type like historical ways of life in california in times past, etc……
July 9, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Harbor District looks for Humboldt Bay Management Plan Advisory Committee
July 9, 2008 at 1:13 pm
One more time:
Harbor District looks for Humboldt Bay Management Plan Advisory Committee
July 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Goldman-Sachs is an investment bank – just like a bank you use to purchase a house. Does your bank live in your house? A shipping company is the most likely candidate for building the marine terminal and repairing the railroad. The Harbor District has the capability of directing exactly what they will be responsible for and what they will not be able to do. Do any of you actually know how a port operates? This sounds like some of you just want the name changed to the Humboldt Bay Recreation and Conservation District. Sorry, but the State of California mandated harbor improvements when the district was formed.
July 9, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Kate, our main supply of fuel comes in by barge, yet little to noting has happened. In comparison, any other ship is a drop in the bucket, of fuel it would hold to spill.
July 9, 2008 at 3:22 pm
three million gallons the barge holds, every one to one and a half months.
July 9, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Theres no comparison between an infrequent barge and daily container ships.
The likelihood of spills or other accidents is more dependent on the number of ships than how big they are. The SF bay spill was small in gallons but large in effet and happened because of human error. The more humans involved, the more chance for error.
Plus more traffic means ships will sometimes have to move under less favorable conditions than a once a month barge. The fuel barge can be easily rescheduled around even slightly unfavorable weather. And, its cargo isn’t extremely time dependent, unlike container ships whose economics rely on tight schedules.
July 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Cargo ships have passed this port by before because of extreme weather conditions or shoaling at the entrance. They don’t really want to sink.
July 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Daily container ships? Wow.
July 9, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Takes three days to load or unload a ship. Two berths. Do the math.
July 9, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Two births for the first project. There are miles of shoreline for many more births.
July 9, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Excuse me, berths.
July 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm
You might have been right the first time 4:50.
With a few jobs, there might just be a few more births.
July 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm
And the resulting 20+ trains through Old Town every day.
July 9, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I have heard that cargo container ships often spread invasive species with their bilge water. This could spell the end of oyster farming in the bay. On the other hand, I like trains.
July 9, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Miles of shoreline that are not close enough to the channel to be usable. Only two berths are viable.
Exactly why are there 20 trains? They must be able to unload that stuff really really really fast.
July 9, 2008 at 5:05 pm
It is illegal to empty bilge water not just in the bay but within miles of the bay – they are suppose to empty and refill out at sea.
July 9, 2008 at 5:05 pm
And thru Loleta, Fortuna, Rio Dell and the entire Eel River Valley, blasting their horn at every intersection, in the middle of the night when you are trying to sleep. The sound of money.
July 9, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Do the math.
1 ship
3,000 containers
Unload 1,000 a day
2 containers per rail car
50 rail cars per train
= 10 trains in each direction
July 9, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I hope they build the port and rebuild the railroad. If you listen to Heraldo, you would think that the world is ending if the port and railroad came in. Jobs and prosperity would follow. If Heraldo and the rest of his zero growth enviro buddy transplants were around during the 1800’s, there wouldn’t even BE a Eureka, Arcata, railroad…zip!
July 9, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I was raised in Scotia and grew up 200 feet away from the railroad. Didn’t bother me a bit. Actually, it was kinda cool hearing the train comin….
July 9, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Containers are sorted and some are stored for later shipment. The railroad is used as a warehouse by many companies – “just in time” deliveries is what they want, not to store the stuff somewhere. Still can’t see that many trains a day.
Anyone who doesn’t like train whistles probably doesn’t like country music – lol.
July 9, 2008 at 5:30 pm
And the size of ships comming in here probably won’t hold 3000 containers, plus they may only unload a lesser amount, taking the rest to another port.
July 9, 2008 at 5:31 pm
With 110 db horns and 12 at grade crossing in Eureka it might be a bit more than country music.
July 9, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Probably and May don’t really count if you have invested a half mill on the port alone. If I owned the the concession I would certainly stuff all I could down the Eel River.
July 9, 2008 at 5:34 pm
As for ships not holding 3,000 containers perhaps you are talking about post-panamax that carry 5,000 containers
July 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“It is illegal to empty bilge water not just in the bay but within miles of the bay – they are suppose to empty and refill out at sea.’
Again, lets add “Suppose to” to the list with “may” and “probably”.
July 9, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Huge fine if they are caught plus the shipping line is liable for removal of invase species.
July 9, 2008 at 5:38 pm
invasive
July 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm
The bay has a 105 turn just inside the jetties – try to turn a 11,000 tcu container ship in that and you will get stuck.
July 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm
105 degree turn
July 9, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Yes, true today but planning to increase the turning basin.
The HBHRCD has a ballast water policy but do not enforce it.
July 9, 2008 at 5:47 pm
If they increase that turn it will silt up – the Corps of Engineers is not interested in doing that as it will increase maintenence dredging which the Corps pays for.
July 9, 2008 at 5:48 pm
It silts up because of two things; Elk River is on one side and the entrance is on the other. A rock and a hard place.
July 9, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Thanks John for information instead of the anti-everything rhetoric we are used to seeing on this blog. It is fun to read.
July 9, 2008 at 6:31 pm
In the business plan I couldn’t find the details that answer just the concerns posted here.
Even these simple calculations reveal significant problems and challenges for a container port. That’s why the port and railroad were abandoned when the postwar timber rush ended and the rail finally went bankrupt in 92. The railroad and large port were viable only when there was lots of locally generated commodity freight. That and cheap labor, cheap energy, and no environmental protections no longer exist.
When you consider only one track of rail on the right of way, there’s no way for 10 daily trains to travel in each direction. The real number will be fewer and so the economics just won’t work for a commercial venture. Unless there is a terrorist attack on the Bay Area that justifies an uneconomic venture in the name of national security, the container port/railroad can’t pay for the development and operational costs.
Goldman Sachs will try to put lipstick on this pig and maybe even come up with a potential sucker. But at the end of the day, when the consultants have been paid, there won’t be an operating container port or railroad. And the locals will have paid the “lost opportunity” cost by forgoing real development.
July 9, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Somewhere I read they didn’t need locally generated freight. Keep throwing up the straw men, though. It used to “isn’t financially feasible”, then when somebody showed up with money, you guys say, “doesn’t have local control”. Now where have I seen this before….hmmm….spotted owl, murrelet…it gets old.
July 9, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Surfrider hasn’t reared its head in opposition to massive port development….yet….but just wait until thousands of surfers up and down the coast learn of this plan to annihilate their access to a couple of the highest quality surf spots in the continental US. Anybody remember the lawsuit back in 1990? Largest award from any environmental lawsuit in history up to that point. Old Glenn Stockwell may be dead but his spirit is alive and well in these waters.
It’s the Humboldt Bay Harbor, RECREATION, and Conservation District. Eliminate what is perhaps the single most significant recreational asset associated with the bay, and there will be hell to pay.
July 9, 2008 at 8:35 pm
There is something to be said for zero growth enviro logic…if we had been more careful with our development in the 1800’s and showed more respect for the natural woorld we wouldn’t have nature turn against us (so to speak) now. If we are careful and determine to find alternative energy sources and take care of what we already have we just might survive the next 20 years. We’re in no shape economically to invest in any further speculations.
July 9, 2008 at 8:35 pm
There was a fellow in here within the last year that wanted to put a gypsum board plant out near the pulp mill. He was going to export the product to Asia, but when he found out there was no railroad, he left. Needed to bring gypsum to his plant by RR because it would be cheap to transport. And gypsum (before someone goes off on me) is recommended to be put on your veggie garden to “sweeten” the soil.
July 9, 2008 at 8:38 pm
The world population has doubled in my lifetime – from 3 billion to 6 billion. The fickle finger of fate is pointed at all of us for all of the environmental damage. Breathe in oxygen, breathe out CO2. Drive more cars, eat more lobster, catch more fish, clear the Amazon, etc. because we need more because there are more of us. Humboldt county has grown in the last 30 years from being rural to being suburban. The driving habits are the real giveaway.
July 9, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Nothin’ new here. Same thing from the same mouthpeices. Hey Heraldo, great job of ginning up the has-beens. For the straight thinking majority, quit waisting your time with this site. Any bets on how long this thread goes to the homeless?
July 9, 2008 at 9:17 pm
So the First Amendment Freedom of Speech only applies if you agree with them. Nice. Must have liked that vote on FISA today.
July 9, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Nice try. Don’t think the founding FATHERS had blogging in mind on that one. Just like holloring “FIRE” in a packed auditorium, this fear of progress should be outlawed. That ought to set off a sh_tstorm here!
July 9, 2008 at 10:00 pm
A few answers:
Turning Basin – From the recently released business plan:
15. Investigate environmental requirements and permits needed to extend the turning basin and dredge at the berth should there be market and shipping line demand.
Dredging – Dredging was (and is) not paid for solely by the Core. In fact the Harbor District is stlll paying off the debt:
“In order to increase the import/export opportunities and better service existing deepwater commerce at the Port of Humboldt Bay, the Humboldt Bay Harbor District examined the feasibility of deepening the Port’s main shipping channels. Between 1988 to 2000, numerous engineering, environmental and economic studies were completed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and others which resulted in a preferred project. More than $1 million dollars of Harbor District funds were invested during this stage of project development. The preferred deepening project involved deepening Humboldt Bay’s Bar and Entrance Channels from -40′ to -48′ (MLLW) and deepening the North Bay and Samoa Channels from -35′ to -38′ (MLLW). The Project was awarded to a joint venture of Manson Construction of Washington and Bean-Stuyvesant of Louisiana on June 4, 1999. Work began on August 5, 1999 and was completed on April 18, 2000. Nearly 5 million cubic yards were dredged.
Funding for the Deepening Project was split between the Corps of Engineers and the Humboldt Bay Harbor District. The Corps is responsible for 65 percent of the construction costs while the Harbor District is responsible for the remaining 35 percent.This 35 percent, or approximately $5,000,000, was extremely difficult for the Harbor District to obtain. The majority of these funds were borrowed by the Harbor District and included a $1 million contribution by the Eureka Redevelopment Agency. After a great deal of research and discussions with shippers, General Tariff No. 1 was enacted in order to provide a mechanism to recover a portion of the annual debt service on the borrowed funds.
July 9, 2008 at 10:02 pm
John – there was also a boat builder who was turned away by the Harbor District.
July 9, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Um…a boat builder? When was this? On face value that sounds ludicrous….do you remember the details?
July 9, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I remember the details Kate. It seems that there were protests about the fact Boats create a wake when they are in motion.
When observed from above, they look suspiciously like Chemtrails dispersed by jets in the sky.
Not good. First the sky. Now the water. For the love of all that is holy, when will they stop?
July 9, 2008 at 10:42 pm
“The harbor revitalization plan identified many possible marketing opportunities and scenarios. The concept of Humboldt Bay becoming a container port was identified as a “weak competitive position,” “unattractive,” and of the “lowest priority,” even if rail service to this region were to be restored.”
Grand Jury Report #2007-CD-01 Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation and Conservation District
July 9, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I don’t understand the reference to “oral comments only”. I couldn’t make it to the meeting so I looked at the Harbor Commission ’s website and it gave the clear impression that they would take written comments through July 25. Am I wrong?
July 9, 2008 at 11:01 pm
You are correct — written comments accepted through July 26.
July 9, 2008 at 11:02 pm
“When you consider only one track of rail on the right of way, there’s no way for 10 daily trains to travel in each direction.”
So what is stopping the expansion to two tracks?
July 10, 2008 at 2:05 am
True. And if you could see wind currents you would realize your body moves air molecules when it is in motion and the pattern of the disruption looks suspiciously like Chemtrails dispersed by jets in the sky. We’d better all stop moving right now. Stay inside. Better yet, hide under the covers.
July 10, 2008 at 6:50 am
“Um…a boat builder? When was this? On face value that sounds ludicrous…”
Not so much. Wing Inflatables will be moving to the bay and there could be others. Other communities have marketed this niche and have done well. Without going into the legal details there is a need for American flagged ships and ferries and very little waterfront land available to build them. There have been these interests investigating Humboldt Bay but with all the container shipping speculation happening they have received a somewhat of cool reception from potential land sellers/leasers.
July 10, 2008 at 7:32 am
If a boat or small ship manufacturer were to locate on Humboldt Bay and were able to manufacture in an environmentally safe and sustainable way, and paid living wages, and did not receive tax payer subsidies, then I think that would be wonderful.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 10, 2008 at 8:34 am
In all the hype (and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent) about container ports there has been no effort made by local agencies to promote this type of industry here.
July 10, 2008 at 8:39 am
That is precisely the type of industry that is needed here. One that is environmentally sound, that fits with the theme of regional self-sufficiency, provides living wage jobs and is not dependent on government handouts.
have a peaceful day,
Bill
July 10, 2008 at 9:02 am
7/09-10:00 pm–In the late 90s the Harbor District tried to stick Humboldt County property owners with the bill for the deepening project.They placed a property tax acesssement on the ballot which was voted down in defeat–The HD went ahead with the project anyway.General tariff 1 has not provided the amount of repayment expected.
July 10, 2008 at 9:14 am
There is a boatbuilder here – Ken Bates – Cloudburst – builds fishing boats that are used in this area.
July 10, 2008 at 9:17 am
Breakbulk cargoes are also available. the container ports do not want that type of cargo since containers can be stacked on the landside and take up less room regarding tonnage. There are lots of breakbulk cargo out there. Plus with breakbulk, no shoreside cranes are needed as they have equipment on board the ships to load and unload – known as “ships own gear”.
July 10, 2008 at 9:23 am
When the dredging was done it was primarily for deepening the entrance. The Corps of Engineers believed that deepening the entrance to 48′ would help stop the shoaling that was occuring on a regular basis which then created a need for more maintanence dredging which the Corps of Engineers is responsible for payment. That deepening let larger waves come inside the entrance and started to wash out that area where the RR tracks are. The Corps had to replenish the rip rap in that area to stop the erosion. The deepening has made it safer for small vessels like commercial and recreational fishing boats to safely navigate the jetties.
July 10, 2008 at 10:35 am
“The Corps of Engineers believed that deepening the entrance to 48′ would help stop the shoaling that was occuring on a regular basis which then created a need for more maintanence dredging which the Corps of Engineers is responsible for payment.”
Before the deepening project in 2000 the average dredging volumes were about 0.5 million cubic yards a year. It seems that since then this has increased to about 1.5 million cubic yards a year. This is a significant amount of dredging considering the typical numbers you see for San Francisco Bay.
http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/newsrelease/newsrelease_02_26_07.html
July 10, 2008 at 10:48 am
CEO David Hull:
“The maintenance dredging at Woodley Island and the Eureka Boat Basin paid for by local taxpayers through the Harbor District and the City of Eureka consists of material from the Freshwater watershed. This costs millions of dollars every 7 to 10 years so this is a major concern.”
July 10, 2008 at 10:55 am
2006-07 2007-08
Projected Budget
EUREKA CAPITAL PROJECTS-E.T. FUND
Funded Projects:
DREDGING $1,469,962
July 10, 2008 at 11:00 am
What’s the reason the bay is being filled? I heard Arcata Bay is sludge now because of changes to the waterways in the Arcata Bottom made by early farmers. True? False?
July 10, 2008 at 11:05 am
The Corps of Engineers only pays for dredging the main channels. They only dredge for commerce as they see it. Boat basins with fishing boats, both commercial and recreational plus yachts are not a concern to them. That is for the local agencies to figure out. The Corps of Engineers doesn’t care if those areas become mudflats. And when you think about it, the whole bay would probably become a mud flat if there was no dredging at all. The entrance would close off from time to time, etc.
July 10, 2008 at 11:06 am
The Harbor District has a sinking fund to set money aside for the dredging of the Marina. I have no idea what the City of Eureka does, but somehow they come up with the money.
July 10, 2008 at 11:11 am
The following streams, creeks, rivers flow into Humboldt Bay: Janes Creek, Jacoby Creek, Freshwater Creek (plus Ryan Creek that joins it near Myrtle Avenue), Elk River and Salmon Creek. The watersheds were all logged way back when. Slash was piled in the creeks in the 1940s and 1950s, thinking that it would wash away. It did not. Lots of silt still comes out of all these (well, maybe not Janes Creek so much as it actually runs under the Arcata Plaza) and that is where the mud comes from today.
July 10, 2008 at 11:19 am
Wow. Lots of stuff here. Most of this is theoretical, based on a basic understanding of local hydrology. First, the bulk of the material dredged from the harbor entrance is sand likely from the Eel River migrating north. The Eureka and Marina sediment are likely from Freshwater (so downstream taxpayers are impacted by logging practices). It is thought that the channels in the north bay were filled in because the wetlands in the Bottom were diked off thus removing the “tidal prism” (the volume of water that used to flow in and out of the wetlands). Without this volume of water twice daily flushing the system combined with added sediment from the changes in land use upstream the channels became silted in. I’m sure that there are other unaccounted for factors and new theories will be made.
July 10, 2008 at 11:31 am
There were no real channels in the north bay when Arcata was called Union and the ships would unload their cargo waaay out there. Check some old photos of the gold mining era. There was a dock that seemed to go at least a third of the way out into the north bay.
The Mad River came into the bay at some point, but it keeps changing its channel even today.
July 10, 2008 at 11:44 am
There is an “Arcata Channel”. It was “way out there”. It is not as deep as it was.
There was also the Mad River Canal, for a time, to move logs into the bay. It was man made. It quickly became too costly to keep up. It is hard to say when the Mad naturally flowed into the bay, but it was long before recorded history.
July 10, 2008 at 11:47 am
Local residents cleaning up after Maxxam. As in every other way, Hurwitz screwed Humboldt County by externalizing the cost of doing business.
July 10, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Think Freshwater Creek is bad, check out Ryan Creek. Runs behind Redwood Acres all the way out to Cutten. If you try to walk in the creek, there are places you will sink in to mid-thigh. That was courtesy of the logging practices of the 1950’s by gyppo loggers. Should be restored with the money from the terminal. There is no other way to get the money. Use the CCC – the only ones that I have seen that actually do restoration work.
July 10, 2008 at 1:07 pm
John said: “Should be restored with the money from the terminal.”
But the Times Standard says:
“The draft plan projects a $1.8 million positive cash flow for the district after 15 years in a best-case scenario, but a reduction of 25 percent in cruise ship or cargo service would leave the project in the red even after 15 years. “
July 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The Times-Standard is not a Port Authority. Ask the Port of San Diego what they make off of terminals. More tonnage flowed through Humboldt Bay than went through San Diego about 12 years ago. San Diego decided that they could be more than just a moorage for Navy ships.
July 10, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Those figures are from the business plan as presented by TranSystems
So you say we shouldn’t believe the consultant hired by the HBHRCD and paid for with Headwaters Fund bucks?
July 10, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The cruise ship data is suspect. They do not deal with breakbulk cargo, roll-on-roll-off cargo, or bulk cargo. Only containers. The railroad is a must for the marine terminal to be successful. Once both are in place, a whole new world of opportunity opens up. Companies will set up near the terminal for ease of use. Can’t sell it unless it is built.
July 10, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Why do you suppose the Business Plan ignored those other types of cargo?
July 10, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Because everyone keeps saying “containers”. That is the most desireable cargo for planning purposes because it takes up a defined amount of land. The others – say roll-on-roll-off usually means autos – they take up a whole bunch of land. San Diego went with cars for awhile until they started to run out of space.
July 10, 2008 at 2:39 pm
“Ask the Port of San Diego what they make off of terminals.”
Then ask them what they spend it on. Not much on restoration. Outside agencies still doing the lion’s share there.
July 10, 2008 at 2:42 pm
“The railroad is a must for the marine terminal to be successful.”
There are rumors of a new “short sea shipping” interest being put together for the west coast and local shipping folks have expressed strong interest setting this up for Humboldt Bay.
Would be a lot cheaper than the rail to build and maintain.
July 10, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Short sea shippers are barge operators – a bunch of unreliable drunken pirates. I think we need to get everyone in Humboldt County a 215 card and export Ganga.
July 10, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Not sure how they compare with the people who have been or who think they will run the railroad. At least they are still in business. In any case, there are new business models and companies interested with new lines of barges and ships specially designed for this type of transport.
July 10, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“I think we need to get everyone in Humboldt County a 215 card and export Ganja”
isn’t that already the de facto economic development plan for the county?
July 10, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Why do advocates of these schemes keep refering to Humboldt Bay as a “deep water port”? It’s a lagoon for god’s sake! We just happen to put a lot of effort into keeping the bar from closing. By the same measure, Big Lagoon is a deep water port. Why not try to develop it? This is not the equivalent of what is in the Bay Area, LA or San Diego. It’s a small mud puddle that was marginally navigatible even by 1800s standards. Do you really think it will become a hub of shipping? It’s past history was only viable because of the local timber. It has never served as a port for importing goods. What has changed to make that different now?
July 10, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Greed?
July 10, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Peace be with you
I am against any kind of foreign investment/operations in Humboldt bay, but it might be interesting having “a bunch of unreliable drunken pirates” here. Isn’t that how Rockefellers got his money? What about the Rothchilds, weren’t they in the pirate busyness also? Hell those two fuckers (their offspring at least) rule the world. Pirates could come here on they way to Bohemian Groves. Might want to think about converting some local breweries into rum factories.
Arcata could change the name of their base ball team from a sexually transmitted parasite, to the the more socially accepted pillaging thief.
“We wrapped ‘em all in a mains’l tight
With twice ten turns of a hawser’s bight
And we heaved ‘em over and out of sight,
With a Yo-Heave-Ho! and a fare-you-well
And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell
Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!”
love eternal
tad
July 10, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“It has never served as a port for importing goods. What has changed to make that different now?”
Population and consumption explosion and the potential for growth in a big big way. Good luck Humboldt, it was nice knowing ya.
July 10, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Whoa….pirates on their way to the Bohemian Grove.
Must be on their way to see Mickey Hart and Bob Weir there.
Grateful Dead/Bohemian Club Members
Kind of interesting, isn’t it. I heard a rumor Mickey Hart played with Merle Haggard at Bohemian Grove a few years back.
“….like those hippies out in San Francisco do”
July 10, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I lived on the haight in 66-68 and didn’t like the Dead then and because they proceeded to show an unrealistic way of life to many young people I haven’t changed my mind about them through the years. Not surprised they are from the dark side.
July 10, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Peace be with you
I love the Dead, but I will not support Micky Hart anymore. What kind of dirt you got on Phil Lesh? He ain’t a Baphomet worshiper too is he?
Maybe Hart sold his soul to Baphomet to be able to play with the Dead. Or maybe those satanists put some voodoo on Hart. Anyway you slice it owl idolizers have a lousy reputation.
love eternal
tad
July 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm
October 4, 1960, 1 million cubic yard of sediment were dredged from the Humboldt Bay channel and that was 40 years before the deepening project you keep saying changed the hydrology of the bay. Now what is your logic???? Read about the area or draw on your historical knowledge before you claim to be an expert about Humboldt Bay.
July 10, 2008 at 10:19 pm
No one claimed to be an expert. Can you give some more back ground on the 1960 dredge? Was it part of a project or do you think it was regular maintenance?
July 10, 2008 at 10:22 pm
It doesn’t take an expert to understand that dredging changes hydrology. Basic pluming really.
July 11, 2008 at 10:06 am
In Sasalito there is a Corps of Engineers display on the hydrology of San Francisco Bay. If you get a chance, take a look. The thing is HUGE. It has the tidal changes. Gives one a feeling about the dynamics of bay hydrology.
July 11, 2008 at 10:15 am
time to get King and BayKeepers on the horn, whats their stand.
July 11, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Redwood Marine Terminal Business Plan Review Period Extended