From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Fugro Pelagos research permit NOT revoked by State Lands Commission
The California State Lands Commission today voted not to revoke the permit for Fugro Pelagos research vessel activity, on the condition that the company abide by the terms of the permit in the future.
The California State Lands Commission today voted not to revoke the permit for Fugro Pelagos research vessel activity, on the condition that the company abide by the terms of the permit in the future.
Commission staff found that Fugro Pelagos violated the terms of its permit when it struck and killed a rare blue whale in October, 2009 off Fort Bragg as its contact vessel was mapping the sea floor for the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. A broad coalition of North Coast environmental, fishing, seaweed harvesting and tribal groups are challenging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast track MLPA process for its numerous conflicts of interests and corruption of the democratic process.
Staff found that the company:
-Did not notify SLC prior to its survey activity
-Did not have marine wildlife observers on board.
SLC Staff cited State coastal conservancy director's Sam Schuchat belief that the killing of the whale was "an accident and even if the observers were on board, the whale would have been killed." No supporting evidence was provided.
Staff recommeded the permit be revoked until Jan. 17th 2010 and then returned if the company paid for SLC costs investigating the incident & preparing report: 70 staff hours = $13,000.
David Miller, President of Fugro Pelagra testified. He says company did not violate its permit. Feels bad about the "large mammal killed."
Miller said his company did not ignore the conditions of its permit - they do not believe their operations require a permit.
The Commission offered a deal to the company that it could keep its permit if it followed the staff's recommendations - payment of costs to the SLC to investigate the incident, and to have observers on board when operating and to notify SLC before conducting operations.
Mr. Miller objected to the conditions only applying to his company, putting him in a competitive disadvantage. He asked that other companies (8 approx.) be required to follow the same terms. The Commissioners said they would look into that but meanwhile did Miller agree to the terms or did he want his permit revoked? Miller agreed to the terms.
Commission staff found that Fugro Pelagos violated the terms of its permit when it struck and killed a rare blue whale in October, 2009 off Fort Bragg as its contact vessel was mapping the sea floor for the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. A broad coalition of North Coast environmental, fishing, seaweed harvesting and tribal groups are challenging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's fast track MLPA process for its numerous conflicts of interests and corruption of the democratic process.
Staff found that the company:
-Did not notify SLC prior to its survey activity
-Did not have marine wildlife observers on board.
SLC Staff cited State coastal conservancy director's Sam Schuchat belief that the killing of the whale was "an accident and even if the observers were on board, the whale would have been killed." No supporting evidence was provided.
Staff recommeded the permit be revoked until Jan. 17th 2010 and then returned if the company paid for SLC costs investigating the incident & preparing report: 70 staff hours = $13,000.
David Miller, President of Fugro Pelagra testified. He says company did not violate its permit. Feels bad about the "large mammal killed."
Miller said his company did not ignore the conditions of its permit - they do not believe their operations require a permit.
The Commission offered a deal to the company that it could keep its permit if it followed the staff's recommendations - payment of costs to the SLC to investigate the incident, and to have observers on board when operating and to notify SLC before conducting operations.
Mr. Miller objected to the conditions only applying to his company, putting him in a competitive disadvantage. He asked that other companies (8 approx.) be required to follow the same terms. The Commissioners said they would look into that but meanwhile did Miller agree to the terms or did he want his permit revoked? Miller agreed to the terms.
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network