FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Ignorance or Lies of Beth Bucksot- Pamlico Co. EDC

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Rick View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 16 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ignorance or Lies of Beth Bucksot- Pamlico Co. EDC
    Posted: 19 March 2017 at 9:48pm


http://www.newbernsj.com/news/20170319/pamlico-chamber-to-host-meeting-on-shrimp-proposals

Beth Bucksot, the Pamlico County economic developer, said in a release that if the federation petition comes to fruition, it will affect Pamlico County fishermen and have impacts on secondary nursery areas.

“The secondary nursery section included in the petition would make all coastal rivers, sounds and up to three miles offshore secondary nurseries,” she said. “This will impact not only the commercial fishermen, but recreational fishermen and basic residential and coastal development.”

“All DEQ and CAMA regulations for those areas would have to be reviewed and changed to meet those secondary nursery requirements,” the release said. “This would impact all marinas, docks, dredging, tourism, restaurants and other coastal development entities. At the same time, it will do nothing to address water quality or environmental issues.”

Will Beth consider the facts in good-faith and address the factual issues or will she perpetuate lies and fear?

If you'd like to address these issues with Beth her email is-
beth.bucksot@pamlicocounty.org

My 1st Email to Beth:


Beth,

There is a huge misconception within Pamlico County Economic Development about the affect a Special Secondary Nursery classification will have on real estate development.

Addressing your concern about nursery area classifications-

I have been working on this issue for four years.  In fact, it was my work that I presented to the NCWF two years ago that helped convinced them to begin the petition process.

If you like to review that work you'll find it here-  https://1drv.ms/p/s!ArHvxdSx-xlqggCT_gwDP-zDDEUt

In NO WAY does a Special Secondary Nursery Area (SSNA) classification affect development.  A SSN classification doesn't even prohibit trawling.  That classification gives the DMF Director proclamation authority to open and close trawling based on biological factors in order to protect juvenile finfish (bycatch) and insure that the shrimp count is of size to produce the best economic benefit to the state.

A permanent Secondary Nursery Area (SNA) classification does not affect development.  The only prohibited activity in a Secondary Nursery Area (one permanently classified as a SNA versus a Special Secondary Nursery Area) is that trawling is prohibited.  Commercial fishing activities other than trawling are still permitted in SNA.

A Primary Nursery Area (PNA) classification is the only nursery area that has rule that might affect development.  Such waters are mainly along the estuarine shorelines and in creeks that are mostly already protected under current classification and have existing rules under CAMA that affect development.  These already exist and are designated under state code.  

You can see the maps here-  Primary Nursery areas are in "Red".

http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/primary-nursery-areas

The NCWF petition did not ask for any additional areas to be classified as Primary Nursery (PNA) or Permanent Secondary Nursery (SNA) areas.

These are the three nursery area classifications-






I hope the above clearly explains nursery areas and the associated commercial gear prohibitions in each area.  For anyone to claim that the NC Wildlife Federation's petition request to designate waters as Special Secondary Nursery Areas will affect real estate economic develop is false.  Anyone saying that is uninformed or being dishonest.

Pamlico County should be concerned about the vast pieces of partially developed land than imploded with the 2008 real estate bubble.  River Dunes is one of the best known, but there are many more areas that need help.

Sustainable fisheries management can return the Pamlico Sound/Neuse River estuary to a premier destination for recreational fishing that will drive an economy that dwarfs the commercial fishing economic impact.  $150,000 to $1,000,000+ homes supporting shopping centers, restaurants, local entertainment, etc. will drive that economy.  With fast internet offering all kinds of work from home opportunities, that economy doesn't have to be driven solely as a retirement or vacation home industry.  NC has lost out to SC, Florida and the Gulf Coast as a recreational fishing destination.  Those states all control trawling and gill nets in order to protect not only the resource, but their very lucrative sportfishing industry. 

The Oriental Croaker Festival has lost its namesake to bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery.  

Please feel free to call me at anytime to discuss the above.

My second email to Beth:


Beth,

Second issue today-

It is my understanding that you believe that the MFC has to take the petition to rule-making as "all or nothing", that the MFC cannot modify the petition, as passed, through deletions or additions before taking the end product to final rule-making.

That is not correct.

On page 269 of this file-  http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=ba078c62-c869-436a-8b24-cd0a1605def3&groupId=38337  you will see that not only can the petition be modified that it will be a requirement  to consider two modifications if the annual economic impact exceeds $1-million, which it surely will.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PROCESS

Procedural Requirements for Rulemaking That Results from a Petition for Rulemaking

Under North Carolina General Statute 150B-20(b), the MFC must grant or deny a rulemaking Petition within 120 days after it is submitted.  If the rulemaking Petition is granted, the notice of text published in the North Carolina Register may include:

·A statement that the agency is initiating rulemaking as a result of a rulemaking Petition;

·The name of the person who submitted the rulemaking Petition;

·The text of the requested rule change submitted with the Petition; and

·Whether the agency endorses the proposed text.

Each agency must quantify the costs and benefits to all parties of a proposed rule to the greatest extent possible.  If a proposed rule has a substantial economic impact, the agency must consider at least two alternatives to the proposed rule. The alternatives may be identified by the agency or by members of the public. Each agency must accept comments on the text of a proposed rule that is published in the North Carolina Register and any fiscal note that has been prepared in connection with the proposed rule for at least 60 days after the text is published or until the date of any public hearing held on the proposed rule, whichever is longer. The public comment period can be longer than the minimum required period of 60 days.  Each agency shall not adopt a rule until after the public comment period has ended and then has up to 12 months from that end date to adopt a rule.  If more than 12 months elapse the process would have to begin again. 

Considerations for the Timeline of the Rulemaking Process if the Petition is Granted

If the substantial economic impact threshold of one million dollars in a twelve-month period is exceeded, the agency must consider at least two alternatives to the proposed rules.  The need for consideration of alternatives may not be identified until after the MFC has voted to deny or grant the rulemaking Petition.  It is unclear what the impacts to the timeline for rulemaking would be if this occurs.  Since the MFC has never had a fiscal note for proposed rules with a substantial economic impact before, significant time will be required by division staff to work with the Office of State Budget and Management to obtain an approved fiscal note.

Under North Carolina General Statute 150B-21.4(a), an approved fiscal note is required before publication in the North Carolina Register of proposed text of a permanent rule change that would require the expenditure or distribution of funds subject to the State Budget Act. 

Typically, the Marine Fisheries Commission votes on the approved fiscal note and the proposed rules at the same time. If the commission opted to vote on the proposed rules at one meeting and did not vote on the approved fiscal note until a subsequent meeting, the proposed rules would not be allowed to be published in the North Carolina Register until both votes had passed.

When I get time, I plan on reviewing the audio from the Wilmington meeting and will excerpt the discussion related to the above text from the presentation.  I was present at the meeting and this issue was clearly addressed.  The MFC has full authority to modify the petition before taking it to final rule.  By law, they are required to consider at least two modifications.

You may be confusing this with the fact that they could not consider modification prior to voting to deny or grant the petition on the initial vote taken in February.

My Third Email to Beth:


Beth,

This was easier than I thought.  The DMF has already broken out an audio file of MFC attorney Phillip Reynolds' explaining the petition process.

http://www.ncdmf.net/audio/02-2017_mfc_audio/10-Legal_Explanation_Rule_Process.mp3

The audio is 42 minutes long and fully explains how the MFC can take to rulemaking a modified version of the NCWF petition.

  • At 6:45 you'll hear Reynolds explain the only option the MFC had in February was to grant or deny.
  • At 8:30 you'll hear Reynolds explain the that by granting the petition and initiating rulemaking that does not equal adoption of rules.
  • At 14.50 you'll hear Reynolds clearly state that in his opinion the million dollar benchmark will be triggered.
  • At 15.15 you'll hear Reynolds explain the process for developing two alternative actions.
  • At 19.45 you'll hear Reynolds explain how the legal process is satisfied when the text of the petition is published.
  • At 20:00 you'll hear Reynolds clearly explain that
  • You can adopt some and not all.
  • You can modify.
  • You can change.
  • If you substantially change the rule, it is no longer controlled by the petition.
  • At 23:40 you'll hear Reynolds explain why the Shrimp FMP must be opened to remove conflicting rules.
  • At 38.30 you'll hear Reynolds explain that the MFC will not be required to adopt the petition rules verbatim.
  • At 39:00 Reynolds will discuss
  • Alterations and Changes
  • End of Process for Petition
  • Defining Substantial Changes
  • At 41:00 Commissioner Wicker in response to Reynolds answers to questions from Laughridge and Koury states his opinion that taking more time with the changes to get it right is important.

If you will listen to this audio with an open-mind and intentions of good-faith, you'll understand and agree that the commission has interest in modifying the petition from it's present forum and has the authority to do so and take those modifications to rule-making.

I'll be glad to discuss at your convenience.




Edited by Rick - 19 March 2017 at 9:51pm
fiogf49gjkf0d
NC Fisheries Management- Motto: Too Little, Too Late, Too Bad   Slogan: Shrimp On! Mission Statement: Enable Commercial Fishing At Any and All Cost, Regardless of Impact to the Resource.
Back to Top
bakesta View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar

Joined: 24 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2455
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bakesta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2017 at 10:29pm
Go Rick go!!! 


But be careful - facts will confuse herLOL
"Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest." --- Mark Twain
Back to Top
Glacierbaze View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 09 January 2005
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3733
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Glacierbaze Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2017 at 10:58pm
Rick, thank you again for all the time and effort you put in.  I think at least a few newspapers in the state might be willing to publish those 3 emails, absent the personal references to the current recipient, as a letter to the editor, or as an op-ed. 

Has anyone, CCA/NCWF, etc, asked for equal time to rebut Schills' presentation to the Pamlico C of C?
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/20170319/pamlico-chamber-to-host-meeting-on-shrimp-proposals
"You can never elevate your own character by stepping on someone else's."

"Never argue with a man who loves the sound of his own voice."
Back to Top
chriselk View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar

Joined: 22 November 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3314
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chriselk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 March 2017 at 11:14pm
The truth shall set us free
The above comments are my personal opinion and do not represent those of any organizations or agencies I may be a member of.
Back to Top
Rick View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 16 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 March 2017 at 9:54am
Originally posted by Glacierbaze Glacierbaze wrote:

Rick, thank you again for all the time and effort you put in.  I think at least a few newspapers in the state might be willing to publish those 3 emails, absent the personal references to the current recipient, as a letter to the editor, or as an op-ed. 

Has anyone, CCA/NCWF, etc, asked for equal time to rebut Schills' presentation to the Pamlico C of C?
http://www.newbernsj.com/news/20170319/pamlico-chamber-to-host-meeting-on-shrimp-proposals


Yes, those requests have been made in an email to Beth Bucksot.  As of this post, she has not replied.

The Sun Journal editor has also been approached about publishing an "opposing view-point".




Edited by Rick - 20 March 2017 at 10:02am
fiogf49gjkf0d
NC Fisheries Management- Motto: Too Little, Too Late, Too Bad   Slogan: Shrimp On! Mission Statement: Enable Commercial Fishing At Any and All Cost, Regardless of Impact to the Resource.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.11
Copyright ©2001-2012 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.