Mary Keehn founded Cypress Grove Chevre three years before Maxxam descended on Humboldt County.
In 1983, Keehn, a top breeder of Alpine dairy goats, embarked on a new venture: making cheese from their milk, in a time when the American market for goat cheese was extremely limited and virtually no one in the United States was producing it. Working in her home kitchen, she developed techniques for making mild cheeses, both soft and hard, which were very different from the strong, “goaty” European products that then dominated the tiny U.S. market. Business was slow for the first few years, a time during which Keehn and a handful of others pioneered what is now a multimillion-dollar industry. Today, Cypress Grove is world-renowned. Its innovative products have won a number of blue ribbons in international competition, and its most famous cheese, Humboldt Fog, has become a household name.
In 1985, Texas billionaire Charles Hurwitz set his sights on the Pacific Lumber Company, a family-operated enterprise that had, for well more than a century, provided a way of life that remained but a memory to most Americans: solid, well-paying jobs with good retirement benefits, in a mill town where the company paid for everything from public services to park maintenance to scholarships for high-school students. Hurwitz liquidated the company’s priceless stands of old-growth redwoods, methodically destroying, in less than two decades, everything the Murphy family had so carefully constructed over a hundred years’ time. The forest, of course, had stood for milennia — and Hurwitz’s actions spurred a series of lawsuits by the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center, litigation that ultimately resulted in watershed victories for the environmental movement at large.
For many people who remember the days before Maxxam, Cypress Grove and other businesses like it represent hope for the future: homegrown enterprises that provide local jobs and, in some cases, brand names associating Humboldt County with something other than the timber wars or marijuana. But their success is dependent on their capacity to export their products, an endeavor that costs more here than in most other places this size. To remedy the situation, the California Department of Transportation embarked on a series of projects that, as mandated by the federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982, were designed to facilitate access for commercial-sized trucks through “terminal access routes” such as U.S. Highway 101.
In northern California, the last bottleneck on 101 is through Richardson Grove State Park, just north of the Mendocino county line. Proclaimed by some as the entrance to the fabled Redwood Curtain, the grove is a gateway that many environmentalists and anti-development activists would like to keep locked. And this is why, 20 years after Redwood Summer, EPIC and others have taken on a new fight — one that raises difficult questions about the future of Humboldt County, the divisions among its residents, and the direction of the local environmental movement in the post-Hurwitz era.
A Short Primer on Trucks
From the junction of U.S. 1 at Leggett north to Benbow, only California Legal trucks may pass. A single-trailer truck is limited to a total length of 65 feet, while a double-trailer truck can be as long as 75 feet. A truck with two shorter trailers is less prone to “off-tracking,” which is the tendency for the rear tires to follow a shorter path than the front tires when turning. This is what puts truck trailers over the double-yellow line when rounding tight curves. Off-tracking is the key to the Richardson Grove dilemma — not speed, as is widely believed.
Total weight limits are the same for both Cal-Legal and STAA trucks, regardless of length — 80,000 pounds maximum. But there are also limitations on the kingpin-to-rear-axle length, which are different for Cal-Legal and STAA trucks. These affect both the weight that a truck can carry — when the KPRA length is reduced, so is the load — and the tractor size. Therein lies the problem: The length limit in the grove precludes the entrance of many STAA-standard trucks, which often have a conventional tractor with a sleeper cab and a 53-foot trailer (longer trailers are used to maximize freight and minimize costs). In order to meet Cal-Legal limitations, a conventional tractor with a sleeper compartment can only have a 48-foot trailer; conversely, a truck with a 53-foot trailer can only have a “day cab,” a model without a sleeper.
If a trucker realizes he can’t get through Richardson Grove, or gets an over-length ticket from the California Highway Patrol, the company whose load he’s transporting must pay a local outfit to meet him at South Leggett and switch the tractor for a shorter one. After the load is delivered, the tractors are switched back. According to Vince Thomas, Director of Logistics and Distribution for the Arcata-based Sun Valley Group, switching tractors at South Leggett costs the company $1,000 each time it has to be done.
Adding Curves to the Road?
“There are so many misconceptions as to what this project is,” Project Manager Kim Floyd said on March 11. “We’re actually adding more curves to the road, which seems counter-intuitive.” The bulk of the work would be done between mile post markers 1.35 and 1.40, where the roadway is essentially being moved over 17 feet: What is now the southbound lane would be removed and restored to natural soil; what is now the northbound lane would become the southbound lane; and what is currently an embankment on the east side of the highway would be filled in and paved over to become the northbound lane. The completed roadway in that section would be up to two feet wider to provide shoulders. The curve would actually be wider and more sweeping, to accommodate two STAA trucks traveling in opposite directions.
In several other parts of the mile-long project area, shoulders would be added or widened, and bicycle awareness signs are planned throughout. At the northernmost tip of the project area — outside of the park — a retaining wall would be constructed on the east side of the highway, just north of Singing Trees Recovery Center. An earlier plan, which was scrapped due to protests from both Singing Trees and project opponents, would have included the construction of a 300-foot-long, 17-foot-tall wall across from the center, on the west side of the highway. And while the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) indicated that 89 trees were slated for removal, the number has been reduced to about 40 in the final EIR. Of those, 30 are within the park, with the largest being a 24-inch tan oak.
If approved, funding for the project will come from the State Highway Operation Preservation Program, or SHOPP; the estimated total cost is now $7 million, including the $1.1 million that’s been spent to date on the DEIR and EIR.
Project opponents argue that Caltrans’ stated primary reason for the project — safety — is disingenuous. “There is no problem with safety in the grove,” Kerul Dyer, Outreach Coordinator for EPIC, said during a Feb. 24 forum held at the Garberville Veterans’ Hall. “The DEIR claims that the road needs to be widened because of collisions. So we went ahead and reviewed the CHP reports, and this is what we found: For a five-year period, there were only six accidents involving trucks in this stretch of 101. Two of those occurred within one minute of each other; only one involved trucks going in opposite directions; and according to the information we reviewed, there has not been one truck accident in the grove since June 21, 2005.”
Floyd’s response, when she spoke with the Journal on March 11, was that the project is considered “an operational improvement that will have safety-related benefits.” As made clear in the DEIR, the problem isn’t so much the safety of the Grove now, it is the safety of that stretch of road if or when it fully opens to STAA vehicles. She added that safety concerns extend to recreational vehicles as well. Both trucks and RVs routinely hit some of the trees in the grove, as evidenced by battle scars on the trees and the detritus on the side of the road: side-view mirrors smashed to pieces, broken reflectors, and even RV steps half-buried in the duff.
Project opponents also question why there are no written regulations for STAA-accessible roadways. “There is no written standard as such for STAA trucks,” Julie East, Caltrans District 1 Public Information Officer, wrote in an e-mail dated Nov. 18, 2009. “What we use are truck turning templates [which] show the spatial requirements for STAA trucks.” The templates are found in the state Highway Design Manual; for STAA-standard trucks, total lengths incorporated in the designs run from 64 feet for the shortest single-trailer truck, to 81 feet for the longest double-trailer model.
To Cut or Not To Cut
While the possibility of longer trucks is a concern of Caltrans’ opponents, it’s tangential to the two main arguments against the project: the potential impacts to the environment, and the potential of further big-box development in Humboldt County. Environmentalists’ major concern about the project is neatly summarized on page 83 of the DEIR: “Long-term impacts to the trees resulting from this project include placement of impervious material, placement of fill over the roots, changing drainage patterns, and compaction. Short-term impacts from construction can affect tree roots from such activity as soil disturbance, excavation, compaction, cutting roots, and exposure to fuel and oil from leaky equipment.
“Of most concern,” the DEIR continues, “is construction activity that occurs within the structural root zone of the trees for both long-term and short-term impacts. The structural root zone is a circular area, with the tree trunk at the center, with a radius equal to three times the diameter of the tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet above the ground level. There would be construction activities that occur within the structural root zone of approximately 30 redwood trees ranging in diameter from 18 inches to 15 feet.”
The idea that the roots of old-growth redwood trees are going to be cut has horrified project opponents. “It is basic redwood science that redwood trees have interrelated shallow root systems,” Dyer wrote in an e-mail dated March 24, in response to questions submitted to EPIC Executive Director Scott Greacen and Staff Attorney Sharon Duggan. “We cited to that in our comments on the DEIR. Caltrans maintains that it can cut roots, compact soil and place fill on the roots of these ancient trees with no impact. Unfortunately, Caltrans provided no science to support this position, which is contrary to basic redwood science. The public does not have the burden to develop studies, or for that matter, find studies. Caltrans had that burden in the DEIR, and it failed to satisfy that burden.” (Caltrans actually does acknowledge that there might be both long-term and short-term impacts, but it cannot say what they might be.)
The reason Caltrans cannot satisfy that burden is simple: There are no studies on the impact that cutting roots, compacting soil and placing fill on roots has on redwoods. Project supporters contend that the very fact that the trees lining the roadway are healthy challenges opponents’ fears — especially given that the construction methods used when the road was first built, in 1915, were undoubtedly much less sensitive than what Caltrans is proposing. EPIC couldn’t give a clear response about the apparent health of the trees next to the road: “What we see in Richardson Grove along Highway 101 is a balance in nature,” the March 24 e-mail read, “a balance that has been successful for nearly a century. What Caltrans fails to justify is why that balance must be placed at risk.”
Caltrans argues that it will have a certified arborist, Darin Sullivan, overseeing the project, and that several mitigations listed in the DEIR are designed to offset any potential impacts to redwood roots. They include the “use of an air spade while excavating the soil within the structural root zone of redwood trees”; “use of a sharp instrument in order to promote healing” for “roots less than two inches in diameter”; and the use of “Cement Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) to minimize the thickness of the structural section, provide greater porosity, minimize compaction of roots and minimize thermal exposure to roots from Hot Mix Asphalt paving.”
While county-based environmentalists have taken a hard stance against Caltrans, the Save-The-Redwoods League — the first group to fight for the preservation of the great trees — has thus far taken a nuanced view. On March 29, Executive Director Ruskin Hartley acknowledged that the League has “a long and difficult history of working with Caltrans going back to the ’30s,” citing work on the Avenue of the Giants, Prairie Creek and Cushing Creek as examples of projects where hundreds of old-growth trees were cut. But representatives “who took a look at the draft and walked the alignment with Caltrans” were encouraged by the fact that no old-growth redwoods will be removed, and struck by the fact that several in the main project area are scarred from being hit. “From a human safety perspective, and the health and safety of the trees, it’s not an optimal situation,” Hartley said.
The League does share others’ concerns about how roots will be impacted. “The last frontier in the redwoods is what happens in the ground,” Hartley continued, “and yet there are cases where the trees right next to the road have remained healthy.” In regards to an oft-discussed section on the Avenue of the Giants “where all the tops have died back,” Hartley theorized — as others have — that “the placement of culverts and ditches seem to have really affected the hydrology. As long as the water supply is left intact, the trees seem to do okay.” So does the League support or oppose the project? “It’s hard to have a definitive point of view without having seen the final EIR,” Hartley responded. “But Caltrans does keep raising the bar on projects like this. They have managed to find a way to do it without cutting big trees.”
Project opponents have also criticized Caltrans for failing to invest in a full EIR from the get-go; instead, the agency had to be pressured into doing so, after receiving correspondence from numerous groups including the Northcoast Environmental Center and EPIC. Caltrans has also come under fire for initially refusing to conduct a marbled-murrelet count in the area, on the grounds that — per a Jan. 15, 2009, letter from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service — “no murrelet nest area or habitat would be disturbed by the proposed project.” The agency has reversed that decision because of pressure from environmental groups, and now plans to conduct a survey this spring at an estimated cost of $300,000.
The Big-Box Argument
Project opponents also argue that opening 101 to STAA access will open the floodgates for big-box development in Humboldt County. Describing the “buffer zone” that isolates the North Coast, “You can see why Wal-Mart and Home Depot are asking for STAA access,” Dr. Ken Miller said at EPIC’s Feb. 24 forum in Garberville. “They’re asking for it in the Del Norte County Goods Movement Plan. You wouldn’t know that if you listen to our county and Caltrans; they don’t tell you that.”
No discussion of the Richardson Grove proposal ever ends without the specter of Home Depot being invoked at least once. Among opponents, there is a widespread belief that the sole purpose of the project is to facilitate the highly controversial Marina Center project. In other words, it’s all being done for Marina Center developer Rob Arkley. “It is worth noting that we have already witnessed the reliance on an STAA designation, as revealed in the Marina Center Project DEIR, which specifically refers to using STAA trucks,” EPIC wrote on March 24. “So the concern about an STAA designation opening up the area to big-box stores is not speculation.”
But according to Randy Gans, Vice President of Real Estate for Arkley’s Security National Corp., “When the Marina Center was designed, the parking lot and the intersection were designed for STAA access per the request of Caltrans.” And while it’s “absolutely” true that there are still plans to anchor the complex with a Home Depot, “in no way, shape or form has the relevance of STAA ever come up in our negotiations with that store,” Gans told the Journal on March 8. “They’re serving a Home Depot and a Wal-Mart in Crescent City without STAA access. … If anything, it puts the local retailers at a disadvantage, because they don’t have the resources that Winco and other big-box stores have.”
Gans added that for its part, Security National “has never once lobbied” for STAA access, and has not submitted comment to Caltrans about the Richardson Grove proposal. He further opined that big-box stores will only come to Humboldt County if they perceive that it’s economically sound to do so: “Home Depot is interested in this market because there’s a demand for it here,” he said. “There are a lot of goods sold by Home Depot to Humboldt County residents, but those goods are sold outside of the county and those dollars are spent elsewhere [in Crescent City, for example].”
In response to a question about corporate stores that are already here, EPIC’s reply was, “Your mention of existing big-box stores with their own fleets of trucks establishes that the STAA designation is not necessary.” But not necessary for whom? If the big boxes don’t need STAA access to be here, how can providing that access be the cause of their coming here? The argument seems to be circular and self-defeating. It is, of course, “necessary” for Caltrans to be in compliance with federal law — a fact that was curiously ignored at the Feb. 24 forum.
Several people interviewed for this story questioned the idea that a corridor open to STAA traffic would quickly become overrun with commercial trucks, or that Eureka will become another Santa Rosa. “The only time I can think of where someone on I-5 would choose 101 is if there’s snow in the Siskiyous, and the road is closed,” Second District Supervisor Clif Clendenen said on March 18. “Even then, they’d probably just be advised to sit tight and wait. … I don’t believe it to be true that truckers will use this as a conduit.”
“If the road access was going to turn us into a hotbed of economic activity, Redding would be becoming one now,” Bob McCall, Sales & Marketing Manager for Cypress Grove, said on March 5. “They’ve got cheap land, cheap housing, and access to I-5 — but their unemployment rate is higher than ours.” J. Warren Hockaday, President/CEO of the Eureka Chamber of Commerce, emphasized the differences between Santa Rosa and Humboldt County: “Santa Rosa was a bedroom community to the Bay Area, and housing was affordable there,” he told the Journal on March 9. “The development was driven more by investment than community interest. It was a different time, with different circumstances and different politics. I can’t imagine it happening here.”
Caltrans has been soundly criticized for failing to provide a more in-depth analysis of the economic justifications for the proposal in the DEIR. According to Floyd, “the final EIR does have sections on land use, community impacts and growth. I have heard many concerns about big box and why the project is planned. … Humboldt County Planning conducted a business survey, and from that survey we performed an analysis. This was limited only to those sectors responding to the survey, and within those sectors, the response rate was significant. Those responding were likely the businesses most concerned with shipping costs.”
County officials — including Clendenen, First District Supervisor Jimmy Smith, Fourth District Supervisor Bonnie Neely, and Economic Development Director Jacqueline Debets — were all of the same mind when it comes to keeping Humboldt County rural. “I share the fear of big-box development, but this isn’t what’s going to stop it,” Debets said on March 10. “It’s a red herring.” “I don’t believe living in self-imposed transportation isolation is the way to limit big-box development,” Neely wrote in a March 17 e-mail. “Each community needs policies in their General Plan. In Humboldt County, our Board established discretionary review authority over any big-box development, meaning we can review and decide to approve or disapprove each proposal on a case-by-case basis. This is the process for weighing the impacts of big boxes on our local businesses and environment.”
Is a Fight For the Grove Near?
The opposition campaign spearheaded by EPIC has certainly been fruitful: During the official public-comment period, which ended on March 9, 2009, Caltrans received about 1,000 comments, approximately 300 of which were form letters. The agency is mandated to provide official responses to all comments received in that period. By comparison, about 300 comments were received on the Environmental Impact Statement for work on the Eureka/Arcata corridor, another controversial project.
That’s not all. According to Dyer, since the official public-comment period was closed, “we have sent in over 2,000 postcards from concerned community members to Caltrans, opposing the project and supporting our campaign. Now we are teaming up with the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, the Bay Area Coalition for the Headwaters, the Center for Biological Diversity, and others in a new coalition opposed to this project. This organizational collaboration is in addition to our ongoing participation in the Coalition to Save Richardson Grove locally.”
Meanwhile, it appears that EPIC is preparing to go to court. “Fundamentally, the DEIR was a legally deficient document, and absent a new document which is circulated for public review, we think it violates the law,” EPIC wrote on March 24. Duggan would not confirm that they’re preparing a lawsuit — “We really cannot discuss potential legal claims in hypothetical situations” — but the indicators are clear that they are. It’s now up to Caltrans to consider whether there are any more environmental mitigations it can make, and to bolster its economic argument.
In next week’s issue, the impact of transportation costs on local businesses will be examined, along with weaknesses in the arguments set forth by both Caltrans and its opponents.
Cristina Bauss is a staff writer for The Independent and a reporter for KMUD News.
This article appears in Roads and Redwoods April 2010 (North Coast Journal).
Funny, no mention of the Mexican goat milk issue with Cypress Grove? All this talk about getting their product out, and no talk about where their milk comes from? It’s a far drive up here from the border.
Funny also, that the max weight for any truck is 80,000 lbs, no matter how long it is. Liquid loads such as Mexican Goat Milk will still be the same size, no matter how long the truck is.
Sun Valley is the only business really to benefit, flowers are light weight/high volume.
All this work at $7 million dollars for an extra foot width for each lane? for a two mile section of the highway?
Does anyone believe a word out of Randy Gans mouth these days?
Got Proof Randy? no, sadly, no, just a story, the same ole story. oh, and a web site with pictures. Randy has a web site with pictures. ‘Absolutely’ he does.
I now live in Redding , after living in the Humboldt area most of my life, 55 years. In Redding, we have access to the huge trucks you are proposing to bring into the Eureka Humboldt area. Is it helping business ? Absolutely not. There is little or no use for them. I do believe the train helps, but tucking ? Just helps the big box stores come here. We have most of them. Unemployment is extremely high here. This is because the area was dependent on new housing as a financial resource for most everything, and everyone in construction is not working.
The answer for your economic problems does not exist with super truck access. The safety of visitors to your area should be your only priority, and terrific events bringing them there , such as Arts Alive.
NCJ readers may be interested to know that regardless of past abuses, the Headwaters Fund (HF) grant to the county to lobby for inclusion in the Nation Highway System (NHS) was extended through June without even going to the HF Board for approval, which speaks again to process or lack thereof. Anyway, there was about $18,400 left in the hands of the County’s Community Development Services (CDS).
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved letters of support to Caltrans for both the 197/199 Del Norte and 101 Richardson Grove projects as routine consent items in Sept. 2008, before the DEIRs were even released. While the BOS letters and recent HF grant reports make it clear that the 101 redwood corridor will become part of the NHS, there has been no study of the overall impacts this designation will have for Humboldt County.
More than half of the $50G HF grant to the County for NHS access has already been spent on a lobbying firm in Washington DC and a local public relations firm. It would make more sense now for the CDS to spend the remaining $18Gs on studying the impacts of becoming part of the NHS and designating local STAA access routes. Once the pipeline is open, there will be no turning back and even less local control, so the county would be wise to lay that groundwork now, to the extent it can.
Regardless of their private concerns, it will be very difficult to get the current BOS to reconsider the previous board’s support, whereas supporting a broader look at the impacts may be more politically palatable. The loss of local control will not only affect local businesses, but county governments as well.
On KINS Talk Shop last month, the CEO of the Eureka Chamber of Commerce stated that "everything costs 3% more up here" due to limits on max size STAA truck access. Many people accept this statement without really thinking about it, which is understandable because it’s all they’ve heard, in various forms, from those in positions of local economic leadership, largely led by Jacqueline Debets and Kirk Girard. Those with any experience running a business or involved in trucking knows a general statement like that is absurd.
It appears the County’s CDS designed an online survey back in 2003 to support foregone conclusions. That scant data was then extrapolated in Dr. Gallo’s report to justify an economic need and green-wash the environmental impacts in Caltrans’ DEIR. Debets, supported by Girard, went on to support a select group of businesses without regard to the consequences to other businesses and the general public, going so far as to hire a public relations firm last year to make their case as opposition continued to increase.
Seems ironic we can spend 10 years on the General Plan update, but virtually ignore becoming part of the National Highway System – potentially having a greater affect on the rate and type of future development than anything that comes out of the General Plan update.
It is after all a State Park, and never intended as a freeway. Would widening the road increase the truck traffic and if so what would happen to the tourist trying to pull over and take photos or sight see…what about the Eureka harbor, why isn’t something being developed there?
Cypress Grove’s Lambchopper and Midnight Moon cheeses are made in Holland, and the company is doing fine.
Sunvalley, which has exploited illegal aliens to produce poisoned flowers, is also doing fine.
Kokatak, the maker of plastic clothing, some of it from China, is doing fine.
O&M has been doing fine since 1948, with all its real estate dealings.
Amulet left because of near-retirement, and backhoe parts weighing over 100,000 lbs requiring a rail spur.
Yakima fled to Mexican cheap labor.
And we are supposed to risk our Park and suffer all the consequences of big trucks running through our county to help a very few companies who are doing fine to earn a few more dollars and maybe hire one or two employees?
Randy Gans thinks we are stupid enough to believe that Crescent City Home Depot and WalMart are not served by STAA from 101 from the north (they still want access connecting 101 to I-5 over 199), or that Arkley’s ads on KINS advocating for STAA trucks to service the Marina Center’s Home Depot are not the same as Security National.
Have these successful business people so little appreciation for our quality of life they would sacrifice it, and us, for so little?
Neither STAA trucks, nor the Marina Center, produce anything, except mortgages and consumption. A better way to move goods is by a marine highway home-ported in Eureka, a veritable jobs factory, with collars of all colors.
Fix the road. Anti Everythings like Ken Miller above, who incidentally got govt help to stabilize the bluffs near his home is first and foremost of the hypocritical do as I say not as I do crowd.
The new trucks are mandated by law.
Well Michael Shreve…if life is so good here, why did you leave? If the events here outdid the events in Redding…or should I say the availability to shopping places in Redding… why did you leave? Oh yes…I thought so…..more availabilty to stuff and events.
The new trucks ARE NOT mandated by law.
CA-Legal trucks continue to be manufactured. They are not becoming obsolete. Urban areas, regions with unique and challenging geography, and remote locations throughout the State are only accessible by CA-Legal trucks. For more information check out a map of California’s highway system–you’ll see that the state is littered with highways that are only accessible to CA-legal truck (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/truckmap/truckmap-d02.pdf)
This is what CalTrans’ own website says, "… states are encouraged to allow access for STAA trucks on all highways." Note the word: encouraged, not mandated.
All highway vehicles must comply with the same emissions standards and all existing trucking fleets are fully compatible with the new Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel that is legally mandated.
The sole purpose of Caltrans’ project proposal is to allow two STAA trucks to pass side-by-side. These changes to Highway 101 are likely to exacerbate safety conditions by increasing the number of large trucks on the road. The “rounding” of the curves is likely to increase driving speeds and will reduce the distance between vehicles and trees.
Bigger trucks are more of a safety threat to passenger vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, this will be especially dangerous in Eureka and Arcata—not to mention big and heavy trucks wreak havoc on roadways.
This project is absolutely unnecessary and has too much potential to negatively impact our community to just go ahead without looking at alternatives. Very few people will benefit while many will suffer. Save Richardson Grove!
Preliminary studies show the primary cause of accidents on 101 through Richardson Grove is the "awe factor" . The CHP is still in the process of doing its own safety study to be completed by next January. But even if this project did make the grove section safer, what about everywhere else through the county?
Its not like we’re the first area that’s been conned into believing opening roads to bigger trucks will lead to economic growth. Consider this from the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks:
*"Bigger trucks translate into greater damage to bridges and roads — and it will be the average taxpayer, not the trucking companies, who pays the bill for repairs and maintenance. With tightening budgets at the federal, state and local levels of government, additional resources for highway maintenance and bridge reconstruction will be hard to obtain. In addition, the inevitable result of bigger trucks will be more pollution, higher taxes, more congestion and an unbalanced freight transportation system."
"The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to sharing its highways with bigger trucks and CABT helps turn this opposition into action. We work to ensure that the voices of average persons are heard and heeded in the halls of government across the country."
"Every time there has been a truck size and weight increase, bigger truck proponents have promised that it will mean fewer trucks, but the facts show that it simply is not true. After increases in truck size and weight, truck traffic grows disproportionately faster than car traffic. Additionally, bigger and heavier trucks create a reliance on trucks as a mode of moving freight and increase highway dependence. When more freight is moved by trucks, it is diverted from other modes, thereby reducing the amount of money that is earmarked to develop and maintain the infrastructure of other modes. Once freight is diverted from other modes of freight they may never be an option again."*
For more info visit the Truck Safety Coalition website.
Consider that Arkley’s Marina Center anticipates 16,000 additional daily vehicle trips outside the Marina Center on weekdays. Neither the Marina Center DEIR nor the Caltrans RG DEIR considers the combined effects of truck and other vehicle traffic on Eureka.
Here’s why it matters, from Caltrans’ own reports:
"Traffic congestion on US 101 in Eureka’s commercial and retail areas due to heavy overlapping uses for trucking, through traffic, and local traffic is a significant constraint on economic development."
"The county’s relative geographic isolation has spared it from some of the sprawl and growth pressures that have impacted many of California’s coastal communities, lending the area a quality of life cherished by residents."
Cambridge Systematics, 2003 a study contracted by Caltrans
It’s not written that Cal-Legal trucks are going to be obsolete. It’s written that Caltrans is mandated, per the STAA, to provide reasonable access on terminal access routes.
The trucks allowed will be 5 or 6 feet longer than the ones that are currently allowed, according to the schematics used in the Highway Design Manual. The weight limit is still 80,000 pounds.
The issue with a push for higher weight limits is separate from the access issue, and shouldn’t be conflated with it. Given the fact that the state is deeply in debt and road maintenance is expensive, I imagine there will be statewide concern against allowing higher-weight trucks on California roads.
The issue with the Marina Center is, likewise, separate from the access issue. You’re not going to stop development by keeping the bottleneck, which, contrary to Dr. Miller’s continued rabid assertions, does affect many businesses in Humboldt County, not just a few. Development and growth need to be dealt with in land-use planning and the GPU.
Enough is enough with the fearmongering and all the red herrings. The local enviros are shooting themselves in the foot by acting like it’s still 1990, and it’s them against the world. You’re making the rest of us bleeding-heart liberals look bad, and we resent it.
It is not written that STAA trucks are mandated, but rather that they are encouraged, as Natalynne DeLappe clearly pointed out above. And yes, we know that the limit is, at present, 80,000 pounds. So why the need, by SOME businesses to have $7 million of OUR tax dollars spent on this make work project, when many of the STAA trucks would not even be filled to capacity? . If companies such as Cypress Grove are simply looking to make even larger profits, when they are indeed doing quite well, then why should the taxpayers of our state, who haven’t been informed of Caltrans plan to disrupt a State Park, be willing to foot the bill? Reasonable Reader- how can you call yourself that with terms thrown about like "rabid assertions, fear mongering, and red herrings"? There are folks from all sides of the political spectrum that are NOT in favor of this proposed project. And to claim that there are many businesses here that are affected by the bottleneck without giving any evidence to support that claim, is not very convincing. And "Fix the Road and Save Lives", you appear to be led blindly into believing that the issue is safety. If that were the case, then why did the last accident involving a truck occur in 2005? Caltrans has used the safety issue, along with a severe lack of public involvement, to push this industry-favoring project through. I drive through the Grove quite often, and the only people that seem to slow down are the tourists and some of the locals. If you think that will change IF the so-called Improvement Project goes through, then you are sadly mistaken. The trucks will go even faster and no doubt accidents will increase. The photos that were posted in this article are for the most part, if you will note, provided by Caltrans. To make it safer, what would cost much less would be one or two flashing radar-enabled signs, telling you that you are speeding, or perhaps even a photo enforcement system. Was this even looked at as an alternative in regard to the safety issue. The answer is no, because safety is NOT the issue.
Many of the current trucks aren’t filled to "capacity." That’s not the point. It’s the added expense and the double trips that are made. Does the greater environmental cost, in terms of emissions, come from making one trip straight through the grove, or from having someone else meet the truck with the bigger trailer or whatever at South Leggett, and have both of them drive through, then have one of them drive back? Isn’t that lunatic?
And what’s up with the "severe lack of public involvement?" I’ve been to two Caltrans meetings, and heard about a couple of others. There was an open comment period on the DEIR and the EIR. And so what if the photos were provided by Caltrans? Is the road different when someone else takes the photo? And if it’s true that they’re actually adding more curves to the road, like the project manager said, then why would people start driving faster through there?
It’s not about the speed. It’s about the off-tracking. It doesn’t matter how slow you’re going. If your trailer doesn’t fit in the lane around the curve, it’s not going to fit regardless of whether you’re going 5 or 50.
Talk to any business that depends on shipping in and out of the county. I’m sure some are willing to pay the higher costs. I’m also sure that once pot is legal and their gray-market economy collapses, they’ll take all the savings they can get, whether in dollars or carbon emissions.
The article claims that they are required by law to do the RG project. Nowhere in the federal code does it say that. In fact in order to be a part of the national network CalTrans would have to apply to the feds w/ a signed letter from the guv and a demonstration of the suitability of the addition to the NN.
The RG project does not fit the requirements to be added to the NN.
The poster who said that CalTrans is required to give "Terminal Access" to STAA trucks does not understand what that means. The definition of terminal access is access to fuel, food and repair facilities as well as loading and unloading terminals. These are to be within one mile of an STAA approved highway and must be safe accesses.
Here are the requirements to be included in the national network:
§ 658.9 National Network criteria.
(a) The National Network listed in the appendix to this part is available for use by commerical motor vehicles of the dimensions and configurations described in §§658.13 and 658.15.
(b) For those States with detailed lists of individual routes in the appendix, the routes have been designated on the basis of their general adherence to the following criteria.
(1) The route is a geometrically typical component of the Federal-Aid Primary System, serving to link principal cities and densely developed portions of the States.
(2) The route is a high volume route utilized extensively by large vehicles for interstate commerce.
(3) The route does not have any restrictions precluding use by conventional combination vehicles.
(4) The route has adequate geometrics to support safe operations, considering sight distance, severity and length of grades, pavement width, horizontal curvature, shoulder width, bridge clearances and load limits, traffic volumes and vehicle mix, and intersection geometry.
(5) The route consists of lanes designed to be a width of 12 feet or more or is otherwise consistent with highway safety.
(6) The route does not have any unusual characteristics causing current or anticipated safety problems.
(c) For those States where State law provides that STAA authorized vehicles may use all or most of the Federal-Aid Primary system, the National Network is no more restrictive than such law. The appendix contains a narrative summary of the National Network in those States.
So which one is it?
"Caltrans maintains that it can cut roots, compact soil and place fill on the roots of these ancient trees with no impact. " -or-
"Short-term impacts from construction can affect tree roots from such activity as soil disturbance, excavation, compaction, cutting roots, and exposure to fuel and oil from leaky equipment."(from Caltrans DEIR)
Just like the Caltrans RIP DEIR, this article is full of holes and contradictions.
"Caltrans argues that it will have a certified arborist, Darin Sullivan, overseeing the project, and that several mitigations listed in the DEIR are designed to offset any potential impacts to redwood roots.They include the "use of an air spade while excavating the soil within the structural root zone of redwood trees"; "use of a sharp instrument in order to promote healing" for "roots less than two inches in diameter"; and the use of "Cement Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) to minimize the thickness of the structural section, provide greater porosity, minimize compaction of roots and minimize thermal exposure to roots from Hot Mix Asphalt paving."
Even more ridiculous than stating the project will have no impacts to ancient trees is the use of an arborist to oversee the project. What does an arborist know about redwood root systems when "There are no studies on the impact that cutting roots, compacting soil and placing fill on roots has on redwoods."
Furthermore, how can Caltrans distinguish between a 2" or greater root while excavating ancient roots with ANY tool, including an air spade?
Even worse is the usage of a cement treated permeable base. Cement is toxic to plants and trees due to it’s extremely high pH. Trees surrounding concrete slabs for recently constructed homes are subject to lime poisoning from the cement. I’ve seen his kill trees and sometimes it takes a decade or two for the lime to leech into the soil. Cement is no better than asphalt and in my "professional" opinion, cement would actually be worse.
It doesn’t matter how Caltrans cuts these roots or what they put on top of them, the fact remains that roots that may be 3000-5000 years old will e damaged.
Caltrans must compact the CTPB no matter what what "mitigations" they do to "spare" the roots. There is absolutely no way that Caltrans can lay down new road without pressing it under extremely heavy weight, such as with a road compactor or roller. Why is this fact not taken into account?
Even more ignorant is this tid-bit:
"Project supporters contend that the very fact that the trees lining the roadway are healthy challenges opponents’ fears — especially given that the construction methods used when the road was first built, in 1915, were undoubtedly much less sensitive than what Caltrans is proposing."
How does any living person know that those trees were not affected back in 1915? Only photos would show how which trees were unaffected, or even more important, still left standing over the past 95 years!
It’s ironic that the only mitigation for wildlife disturbances from the RIP in the park is the installation of trash can lids. My mitigation for this article is to put the NCJ where it belongs, in the trash can…
Christina, you practically wrote the article by taking soundbites and other blips from Save Richardson Grove coalition out of context and without actually talking to anyone from SRG. Your apparent bias in support of the project is NOT what I would call objective journalism. In fact, you basically created the article to fit Caltrans PR agenda to promote the project.
I expect nothing less from the NCJ. Hank Sims attacked the NEC after the Save Richardson Grove radio ads on KMUD. I suppose that the NEC is no longer supposed to advocate for the environment?
Now EPIC is under fire from the NCJ for it’s stance against the project? The RIP DEIR is inadequate, lacking both science and surveys. The RIP DEIR is also hypocritical in stating that the project may have detrimental effects to the grove, and then stating it will not.
Why is the NCJ opposed to environmental groups that are working to protect our beloved Redwood Curtain? The Center for Biological Diversity is strongly opposed to the project as well. Are you going to paint the CBD as “alarmists” for taking a stance against this destructive and unnecessary project? Who is pulling the puppet strings over there at the NCJ anyway? Hank Sims?
If this was intended to be a balanced article, why did you fall so short?
Tell me, is it Christina Bauss?
Or Cristina “Biased”?
I hope you attempt to redeem your reputation as an ethical journalist in part two.
Sylvia, nowhere did I suggest that 101 should be a national network road. Those are interstates. 101 is a terminal access route.
Jeff, the first quote in your first comment isn’t from Caltrans. It’s from EPIC.
I did not write that the project won’t have impacts on trees. I implied that it is unknown if it will.
I left two messages with EPIC while I was in Arcata and Eureka interviewing people. My calls weren’t returned; I assumed there was no one in the office. I e-mailed Sharon Duggan, who was sick. When it came down to the wire, I e-mailed both her and Scott Greacen. The responses I received came from Kerul Dyer, and it appeared to me that all three of them worked on the responses together. I quoted them in full.
I do understand that there are concerns about CTPB, among other things. My feeling is that Caltrans is taking a long time on the final EIR because they’re making it waterproof – but I certainly don’t think they’d tell me that in so many words. Hopefully, issues like that will be further addressed and/or rectified in the FEIR.
For the record, there’s a lot more that I wrote that was edited, not for content but for space. There’s only so much that you can fit in a newspaper.
If Hank did indeed "[attack] the NEC after the Save Richardson Grove ads on KMUD," that’s undoubtedly because KMUD is a non-profit, community radio station that receives CPB funding, and is therefore BARRED from airing commercials. Having programmers on expressing a point of view – say, during the Environment Show – is one thing. Accepting advertising is something else, and is a violation of federal law. And you can’t call it a PSA if it’s advocating a particular position. You’d be pretty pissed if Arkley aired a pro-development ad on the MUD, wouldn’t you?
You’re right, no living person knows how the trees were affected in 1915. The point is, they’re still standing. They’re alive. They haven’t fallen over. They’re apparently still thriving. I don’t understand how writing what project supporters have said makes me ignorant; after all, it’s my job to report what both sides are saying.
Whether it’s "destructive and unnecessary" is, at this point, purely a matter of opinion. Yours is strong and you’re certainly entitled to it.
Oh, and one more thing. I’m no one’s puppet – Hank’s or anyone else’s.
I hope that Christina will read and heed the more reasoned posts above and realize that this is a complex issue with far more aspects to consider than Caltrans has presented. In addition to the above info there is the issue of STAA trucks on all of our roads which is an issue Caltrans simply addresses by saying that’s not their problem. How do people think the trucks will get to the businesses like Cypress Grove, et al?And there’s so much more to consider.
I hope that Christina will read and heed the more reasoned posts above and realize that this is a complex issue with far more aspects to consider than Caltrans has presented. In addition to the above info there is the issue of STAA trucks on all of our roads which is an issue Caltrans simply addresses by saying that’s not their problem. How do people think the trucks will get to the businesses like Cypress Grove, et al?And there’s so much more to consider.
Sylvia, I do know that this a very complex issue. I’ve been covering it since the very first meeting in Benbow.
Cristina, Thank you for your response. I will look further into the "terminal access" definition. The definition that I posted is the one from the fed code 658 which is the STAA code. I’m sorry that you were personally attacked above. I’m glad that you are aware of some of the complexities and hope article 2 will discuss those issues.
Christina … I do not doubt that you intended to present a balanced, objective article that showed the depth of your independent investigation into all the facts underlying this project. Unfortunately, Part I did not realize these objectives-perhaps through no fault of your own.
Part I was greatly unbalanced as all of the interviews except one were of project proponents – the only opponent interviewed was Kerul Dyer of EPIC and EPIC represents only one aspect of the opposition to this project.
These project proponents have always had the upper hand in shaping public opinion – they have the time and money to push their agenda at the expense of the public’s right to know.
An independent investigation of the misuse of the Headwaters Fund grant, the catering to select business interests to the detriment of other sectors of the business community, and the concerted effort to keep public dialog muted have all seemingly escaped your notice. Perhaps Part II will touch on these subjects. Check out the NCJ blog entries for some of the facts that should have been explored.
These blogs are not the place for true public discussion of these issues. We appealed to our elected representative, Clif Clendenen, to facilitate a dialog with the businesses affected – we wanted to sit down with their representatives and try to determine realistic alternatives to their transportation issues. Clif declined to play a role in facilitating such a discussion.
A further attempt to inject public participation was made when we learned of the HCAOG grant for the Regional Transportation Blueprint project which factors in public input. We argued to the Supervisors that a project of the magnitude of the Richardson Grove project should be halted until the Regional Transportation task force could be organized so that the project could be factored into the Regional Transportation Blueprint.
Again, we received no substantive response and yes, I realize that the Supervisors have no direct control over CALTRANS but then again, they were the ones who sent letters of approval for the project in September, 2008 in an obscure “Consent Calendar” item of the Board agenda. Another clever ploy to keep this project under the public radar.
(this is Part I of my blog due to character limitations – Part II will follow.)
(Part II of my post)
We then appealed to Clif and all the Supervisors for a place on the agenda of the Board to give a formal presentation of issues that concerned us as a result of our research. We were ignored.
The entire public comment process engaged in by CALTRANS was highly truncated to deny the public a fair opportunity to comment. If you recall, the DEIR was issued on December 8, 2008 and the one and only public hearing was held on December 15, 2008 at the River Lodge in Fortuna conveniently in a winter storm only days before the start of the holiday season when many locals leave town. Coincidence?
In addition to this, CALTRANS published the deadline for written comments as January 30, 2009, further truncating the public’s time to comment – because it was later discovered that CALTRANS had neglected to post the DEIR to the CEQA database which meant that the comment period had to be extended to March 30, 2009 – however, by the time that all came to light, most of the written comments had been rushed in and folks were on to other endeavors.
In an effort to raise public awareness of the many issues of concern surrounding this project, letters to the editor, opinion pieces, radio ads and finally two forums were undertaken at great expenditure of individuals’ personal time and monetary resources. Unfortunately, we were way overspent and out shouted by the combined power of a monster bureaucracy, unresponsive elected officials and other big money interests i.e. Sunshine Humboldt for one.
Therefore, our hope was resting with our journalists – historically an avenue to raise public awareness of issues that the powers-that-be would rather not have discussed. The Times-Standard has had not one word of actual reportage on an issue that you would think would have crossed their radar. We knew the NCJ was aware of the issue because Hank Sims has made several snide and depreciating remarks about the opposition although he did mention the Headwaters Fund fiasco in an aside. However, we were expecting a more balanced, objective and better expose of all the facts than Part I has delivered.
Again, this might not be totally under your control, Christina, but I for one cannot help being disappointed in what has been the result.
From the CA DOT website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/staa.htm
"The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides standards for STAA trucks based on the Code of Federal Regulations Title 23 Part 658. These standards designate the minimum truck sizes that all states must allow on the National Network."
"The National Network includes the Interstate System and other designated highways which were a part of the Federal-Aid Primary System on June 1, 1991. These other designated highways are listed in Title 23 Part 658, appendix A, however, states are encouraged to allow access for STAA trucks on all highways."
From Title 23, Part 658.11 – Additions, deletions, exceptions, and restrictions:
Source: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=335cc7e6ef2b8c20c9454572beaf3aae&rgn=div8&view=text&node=23:1.0.1.7.33.0.1.6&idno=23
"To ensure that the National Network remains substantially intact, FHWA retains the authority to rule upon all requested additions to and deletions from the National Network as well as requests for the imposition of certain restrictions. FHWA approval or disapproval will constitute the final decision of the U.S. Department of Transportation."
"(a) Additions. (1) Requests for additions to the National Network, including justification, shall have the endorsement of the Governor or the Governor’s authorized representative, and be submitted in writing to the appropriate FHWA Division Office. Proposals for addition of routes to the National Network shall be accompanied by an analysis of suitability based on the criteria in §658.9."
"(2) Proposals for additions that meet the criteria of §658.9 and have the endorsement of the Governor or the Governor’s authorized representative will be published in the Federal Registerfor public comment as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and if found acceptable, as a final rule."
So, what happens if we open the 101 redwood corridor to max size STAA trucks, but fail to meet the criteria for addition to the NN? I’m guessing that inclusion in the NN opens up additional federal funding possibilities to cover extra maintenance due to increased larger truck traffic. If that’s the case and the 101 RG and 199/197 projects still do not qualify the redwood corridor for inclusion in the NN, would the state and locals have to pick up that tab? Which begs the question: is there any plan in place to initiate formal addition to the NN?
"I’m sorry that you were personally attacked above."
Well, I’m not sorry, I never attacked anyone "personally". I simply stated my opinion of the article as well as proposed a possible reason for the articles bias due to Hank’s public stance on the RIP, NEC…,etc.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2009/03/12/rivers-roads-and-rails/
Does Hank have to approve NCJ articles?
Is Hank in charge of editing? The NCJ? Where is the NCJ printed? More importantly, on who’s press?
In the beginning of this article, Cristina, you draw a time line comparison between MAXXAM and Cypress Grove as you frame your article as to "the direction of the local environmental movement in the post-Hurwitz era."
Your "implication" of EPIC’s new "role" in going after Cypress Grove is completely disjointed, if not disturbing. What exactly were you trying to say in that comparison anyway? Can we get a direct response, instead of your "implication"?
You obviously fit multiple Caltrans spokespersons, even Randy Gans into the article. And let’s not forget all of the Caltrans photos. Did you forget to shoot(or even mention) either of the two EPIC billboards SRG? How about the very large turnout of support at both community forums?
If it wasn’t Hank pulling the strings, then was it your deadline that made it possible to ignore individual opponents stances and their focus for their concerns, such as Ken Miller’s expertise on STAA trucking and alternatives to the project, Hawk Rosales and Intertribal’s issues with the project site or Jeff Hedin’s concerns about safety impacts to his fire district?
For such an important article to your readers, why wouldn’t you try to include all aspects of the opposition? Did you spend enough time doing your research or is your bias caused by something else?
Instead of “implying” that it is unknown, why don’t you directly say it? The article would be much less confusing and sound more “fair” and “balanced”(a Fox news comparison that I don’t enjoy making).
I don’t have anything against you Cristina(or even Hank Sims), personally.
We both share a lot of the same circles of friends and probably have a lot of the same values. And regardless of your stance on RG, I’d hope that you would understand that this is “business”, both literally and figuratively.
I’d hope that Hank or Cristina would let me buy them a beer, shake their hand and even thank them for what they bring to our community, maybe even give them a hug if they wanted to. I’m really not as combative in person as I am on line, I prefer to avoid conflict unless it comes down to it. But I’m no pushover…
So please excuse my tone, but this is a very important issue for myself as it is for a lot of Humboldt county residents.
There should be no confusion in my passion for the Earth, as in my opinions being alleged “personal” attacks in responses to these NCJ articles(that are obviously directed to sway public opinion about these controversial issues). I have every right to voice my opinion about the article and question the intentions of the author(s).
So if you put yourself out there to take on such an issue as Richardson Grove and you fail to represent the issue fairly, you are a biased journalist and you should expect criticism from one side as well as praise from the other.
Just as we have here.
But if you purposefully manipulate the information to fit an agenda by integrating unrelated analogies, soundbites from the past, and quotes taken out of context, than you are an unethical journalist.
I can only hope that you realize that there are more important things in life than compromising your ethics. Maybe you feel you didn’t Cristina, but by this article it’s very easy to make that assumption. Again, I hope that you validate your credibility by examining both sides more fairly in part II.
look at the photo of kim floyd on the article. the ncj site took it down but here it is:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/media/issues/040810/COVER_4_.psd
it’s also on the print issue. look at the carson mansion photo on the wall behind her.
of all the photos that a cal-trans project director could have on her wall of the north coast, such as roads, highways, bridges, redwoods, ocean views, etc. why the carson mansion, which has a historical and current blue blooded secret society connections?
now with the media slamming richardson grove like in this issue is there any doubt who or what is pushing this project though?
Dave Spreen, thanks for the posting of a piece of Fed CODE 658. It said,""The National Network includes the Interstate System and other designated highways which were a part of the Federal-Aid Primary System on June 1, 1991."
Highway 101 is not an interstate nor is it part of the Federal-aid Primary System. I posted 658.9 above and 101 does not meet the criteria listed there for inclusion in the NN. Of course we all know that everything is open to interpretation but items 1 & 2 certainly do not describe 101 in Humboldt Cty.
Cristina, I’ve just reread your part 1 and thought about your saying that you had much more info that didn’t make it into the paper because of cuts necessary to keep the article to a size that would fit the paper. As I reread I realized that your entire first page was entirely unnecessary aside from being unclear. From Cypress Groves to Hurwitz told most readers next to nothing about the salient points that need to be made.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that cutting the roots of ancient redwoods can’t be good for them. Nothing is said about enforcing a very low speed limit with cameras and steep fines. We’re only talking about a very short distance. I have spent some time watching traffic going through the grove and the 35 mile/hr. limit is ignored, particularly by trucks. I drove through at 35 and a truck behind me blasted his horn at me and when I turned off the road he stepped on it and ripped by. There are, by the way, STAA trucks going through there now. In fact they can be seen all over the county. I saw one coming out of the bottoms and on to Samoa Blvd. The bottoms? Thank goodness I didn’t have to come eye to eye with that truck in the bottoms where the roads are very narrow and there are no shoulders.
So- please put the essential facts in, use your space well.
From SoHum parlance II discussion:http://kunsoo1024.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/cristina-bauss-on-richardson-grove/#comments
Thought I could answer it here since Erik proposed it to me, and then kicked me off.(Don’t worry, I’ve been kicked out of much better places)…
Eric Kirk said in singe quotes, Jeff in double:
""Is this a quote by Ken Miller or are you speaking for him?""
"It wasn’t clear from my post? Because I don’t know how to make it any clearer.
In any case, he did say at the Garberville forum that people in the Bay Area will pay the extra dollar because the difference makes no difference in their willingness to buy it. I found that statement fascinating."
""The burden of proof regarding the destructiveness of this project to the environment and community is on the people(State of California).
You are an attorney, Erik. I thought you would know this…""
"I wasn’t talking about the law. but I guess I shouldn’t have used a legal phrase. It’s allowed you to avoid responding to my point, or perhaps even see it.
In any case, I do believe this whole dynamic has been an example of what gives environmentalists a bad name. For one thing, months later, I’m not even clear on what would satisfy the opposition other than complete abandonment of the proposal. But if I’m wrong, perhaps you can tell me otherwise. What would satisfy you such that you would remove your opposition to the proposal?"
Eric Kirk said: "I do believe this whole dynamic has been an example of what gives environmentalists a bad name."
What dynamic? I’m not now(and not ever) speaking for the group. I’m also very flattered Erik, but I’m also not speaking for all "environmentalists.
I’m speaking for myself. I’m not claiming to be a part of anyone or anything. I simply have interests in this issue.
Eric also said: "What would satisfy you such that you would remove your opposition to the proposal?"
I thought you knew me, Erik…
What else would satisfy my personal priority in my opposition to this project? (And forgive my "melodramatic" passion on this subject Erik, I just hope you can empathize where I’m coming from and what my concerns have always been…)
Less than 3% remains of our ancient forests. Trees like this are extremely rare, especially in comparison to what used to exist in our biosphere. This is OUR State Park and the gateway to the redwoods, the "Redwood Curtain". People from all over the planet come to see our trees because that is what the Redwood Coast is known for. People also see the Avenue of the Giants and the dead tops.
If there should be a study done on coast redwood root systems, maybe it should be done on the sections of dying redwoods along the Avenue of the Giants. The DPW(now Caltrans) didn’t know it was killing those trees when they diverted the ground surface water into culverts for the current four lane of the highway.
How does the Caltrans of today know that the RIP won’t kill or harm the ancient trees within Richardson Grove State Park? They obviously don’t, even by their own admittance. If Caltrans conducted their own studies, do you think that they would be unbiased and credible?
If you read an article claiming to report BOTH sides as with the strange cover containing a truck and tree duking it out between the "older?" and "younger?" humboldt generations involved with the Richardson Grove issue and you saw only photos from/of Caltrans, as well as a majority of quotes from Caltrans as well, wouldn’t you think the article was biased, and not credible? (I’m still not sure what the cover is supposed to mean. All I can say is that it sure gives me a funny feeling 🙂
My own personal stance?
(continued)
Leave the trees alone.
No cut.
No build.
No compromise.
YES to a less expensive and more suiting alternative. Like the way things should have been, at least in a world where we would like to believe that these agencies have the public’s best interests in mind.
Everything else for me in regards to the various reasons for my opposition towards this project is all a part of the bigger picture:
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_12384995?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
If I had one wish, it would be for Caltrans to use technology to save these ancient trees and solve this issue. Technology to save Caltrans from itself, in regards to excessive spending. Imagine how much money could have been saved by something similar to the radar enforcement signs on the Big Lagoon curves. Millions!
This needs to happen in Richardson Grove State Park, regardless. If this project is about safety, LESS curves will only increase reckless speeding through the Park, would it not? An as a bicyclist, why is it up to the bankrupted State Parks to build a bike lane?(from RIP DEIR) (Caltrans IS kicking the park down some trash(not cash) can lids to mitigate the wildlife issues.(Also from RIP DEIR))
As far as a "watertight" FEIR, I highly doubt that Caltrans will mitigate the massive amount of issues with the environment, necessity and most importantly the location of the project.
Again, I’m not speaking for the group, but I feel the SRGC is made up of a lot of extraordinary, brilliant and diverse individuals who also have their own diverse reasons in their interests of seeing Richardson Grove unharmed. These people are great assets to the community and they are your neighbors. If you read the multitude of op/eds in the NCJ, the Times-Standard, Redwood Times, The Independent, etc., you will find that a large amount of residents oppose the project. The community forums are also very good indicator of this fact.
I don’t feel that the article contained this element of the SRG campaign. I feel that it was one sided and I question if their are reasons behind this bias. Personal and/or professional. Most importantly purposeful or accidental…
Re: Sylvia’s post 33 above
Having over 25 years in wholesale distribution experience locally, I can tell you that there were very, very rarely any problems associated with restrictions on maximum length STAA truck access, so I asked around to see what others in the industry thought. Since the county did not identify the 14 participants that completed its online survey, I chose the same route so as to get more candid responses. Although, the Gallo report does contain a lengthy footnote that observes the bulb farm dominates their market, so freight cost is not a determining factor for that company’s expansion decisions.
First, I checked with a nationwide common carrier that operates a local terminal that handles mostly less than full truckload (LTL) service. These guys usually run 28 ft. vans around town and haul doubles in and out of the area. The manager’s opinion is opening the 101 corridor to max size STAA trucks will have little, if any, affect on them. They speculated that the full truckload contract carriers in the area might be more affected, but acknowledged that if more national carriers decided to try to establish new routes through the 101 redwood corridor, then rates could dip temporarily and a few local truck driver jobs lost.
Next I contacted with a local contract carrier usually taking lumber products out of the area. These trucks often come back empty or with partial loads, so local business people that need to bring in products for their operation, from manufacturers to retailers, can save a great deal by negotiating "back-haul" rates. If/when national carriers that run only 53 ft. vans with sleeper cabs enter the market to cherry-pick full-truckload freight, back-haul opportunities for smaller businesses may diminish.
I also talked to the manager of a wholesale distribution firm with a local branch. Again, STAA trucks were not a factor for them. Then at a HumIBA mixer last year, I talked to the former manager of a local car dealership. He said there was only 1 model of 1 brand that he knew of that had an exclusive contract with a carrier that ran max size STAA trucks only. I talked to a retailer that formally purchased carpet padding from a firm that refused after getting a few tickets. No big deal, there are plenty of suppliers for that commodity that can deliver. A logistics provider told me there was a shortage of refrigeration trucks on the west coast for awhile, but not STAA related.
I could go on, but will leave you with this – a local cider maker told me he favors Caltrans’ Richardson Grove project because he’s "tired at being at the mercy of out of the area truckers" to bring in the empty plastic jugs he uses for his operation. He wouldn’t elaborate beyond that. Until he can, I suggest we continue with the targeted program of exemptions currently enjoyed by the cattle haulers.
When they propose to use Portland cement and steel to build the Richardson Grove project, Caltrans engineers are overlooking a safe, sustainable, non-toxic, 100% organic and locally-sourced building material: environmentalists.
Healthy stands of environmentalists exist all along the coast, growing up to 30 miles inland. Isolated stands have even been reported in Florida, where they are an invasive weed threatening pristine condominium ecosystems. The manufacture of cement and steel are carbon- and energy-intensive processes. But the sustainable harvest of environmentalists can actually represent a net carbon sink, depending on the amount of acai berry products each stand would otherwise consume.
High-quality environmentalists are composed of a hard, unyielding material. One environmentalist skull is thick enough to support a staggering 1.1 million pounds. Ground into a rubble, they make suitable fill for road beds. Yield per environmentalist is low, but high harvest volume would negate this problem.
Four to five hundred environmentalists rolled together with a baling machine, compacted in a hydraulic crusher, treated with a compound of chemical adhesive, and embedded in the ground could serve as an anchor for the retaining wall. Hundreds of other environmentalists could be woven between these anchors to replace the trusses that would otherwise be necessary to complete the wall. With more environmentalists poured in behind those to act as back-fill, the wall could then be planted with deep-rooting grasses and native shrubs, and it would be invisible within five years.
Environmentalists within a 100-mile radius of the project site might contain as many as 10,000 acre-feet of water. Caltrans could easily divert that water and use it for dust control during project operations. Furthermore, environmentalists are acidic, with a pH usually around 5.0, making them suitable as a tree mulch. Composted with chicken manure to kill off the fungus blights that sometimes infect environmentalists, they could then be sprinkled around the roots of trees affected by the project to encourage re-growth. Furthermore, harvesting local environmentalists would create a million local, permanent jobs over the lifetime of the project.
Environmentalists: America’s renewable resource.
Thanks Cristina for the article. Seems like if you disagree with the anti-widening group you are demonized. So I drove through the Avenue of the Giants today and lots of trees are impacted by the road, roots cut and even some stems cut on the road side. The cuts are healing over and the trees still live on. I support the project. No old growth will be cut and I believe it will make it safer as a travel route. Just my opinion. I only speak for myself. I notice the same people post over and over repetively to support their viewpoint. A poll by KIEM indicates 70% support for the project, 27% do not support the project and 3% undecided the last time I checked the poll. So I have my personal viewpoint and will only post once to express my opinion, which is my support of the widening of US 101 which is aligned through Richardson Grove. I believe it’s going to happen and CalTrans presented the facts very well in their environmental review. Also Save the Redwoods League does not oppose it, Fish and Game does not oppose it and State Parks does not oppose it. Thanks for your reporting on this issue. I think a mountain is being made out of a mole hill on this issue, but that is my personal opinion and can’t wait until the project gets under way this summer.