The Humboldt County Public Works Department is set to tell the Board of Supervisors that moving forward with the Humboldt Bay Trail Project is going to necessitate the removal of more than 200 eucalyptus trees along U.S. Highway 101 north of the old California Redwood Company mill.
While conceding that it received a host of comments urging preservation of the 90-year-old trees in the county’s California Environmental Quality Act review of the project, the department warns it will “recommend termination of the project if the northern group of eucalyptus trees cannot be removed.”
In an 11-page CEQA comment evaluation memo, the department makes the case that the trees would pose a danger to users of the yet-to-be constructed 4.2-mile segment of multi-use trail connecting Eureka and Arcata, as the trail would fall within 10 to 15 feet of the trees, between the railroad tracks and the highway.
“Trail users would be situated within the failure zone of many elevated limbs measuring 6 to 12 inches in diameter and weighing hundreds of pounds,” states the memo, citing the county’s Hazard Tree Plan and the Tree Risk Assessment, which apparently sets the national standard for such decisions.
The memo also includes newspaper accounts of several eucalyptus-related horror stories: the tree that fell on a wedding party, killing a 61-year-old grandmother, in Whittier last year; a woman seriously injured by a falling 10-foot branch while walking with her boyfriend in San Diego in 2013; and a 4-year-old girl killed on a playground in Highland Park by a falling tree limb in 1990. At least a couple of the stories include reports of resulting lawsuits.
In all, the department is recommending removal of 219 trees — or 42 percent of the entire row.
The trees were planted in 1921 — four years before the highway was paved — by Henry Devoy, who is famous for donating 120 acres of land in Southern Humboldt that would become Richardson Grove State Park and owned 1,100 acres of ranchland in the Fay Slough area. According to the memo, Devoy planted the trees to serve as a wind break for his dairy and chose eucalyptus because it’s fast growing.
But county staff has determined the trees don’t rise to the level of a cultural resource that warrants protecting under CEQA, as they are not necessarily unique, they don’t relate directly to any of Devoy’s “historically significant” contributions to the local area (like the donation of Ricahrdson Grove), they weren’t part of an “innovative planting plan,” and they don’t provide important information regarding local history.
County staff also reviewed whether the trees are an aesthetic resource worth preserving but determined that, while they have “aesthetic qualities that are appreciated and valued by many commenters,” found their removal would be a less than significant impact under CEQA. Similarly, staff found their removal would have less-than-significant impacts on biological resources in the area — namely raptors and other birds who may use the trees for roosting and nesting, as staff states the trees have not been documented as a corridor for wildlife movement and no nests were spotted during a recent survey.
Staff evaluated four alternatives to removing the trees suggested by commenters but found none to be acceptable. The idea to let the trees remain and include signage warning of the dangers of falling limbs would not address the “safety hazards,” according to the memo. Similarly, it states that the idea to re-route the trail onto the railroad tracks for that section would not only be inconsistent with North Coast Railroad Authority trail policy but would also still leave trail users in the “target zone of the trees,” leaving the safety risks unchanged. The idea to implement a regular program of inspection and trimming operations would be costly — to the tune of $50,000 to $100,000 annually — according to the memo, which concludes, “it will not be feasible to implement an effective tree maintenance program that alleviates the safety risks to an acceptable level.” Finally, the idea to construct an overhang to protect trail users from falling limbs and debris is deemed unacceptable for a number of reasons, among them the unlikelihood of getting necessary approval from the California Coastal Commission and the projected high costs of construction and maintenance.
The board of supervisors is slated to decide the matter at its July 31 meeting, when staff will recommend that it approve the CEQA environmental review and approve the project as described in the document. For more information, read the full public works memo here, the Bay Trail website here and check out the meeting agenda here when it’s posted, which will likely be sometime Friday.
This article appears in Champions of the rodeo.
I have finished reading the latest memo about removing the Eucalyptus trees along highway 101, and am happy to say that I now agree entirely with everything it says. However, it raises a much larger issue – there are dangerous trees near trails throughout Humboldt County. And I’m not talking about a small problem – the towering Sequoia Sempervirens, better known as the Coast Redwood, can hardly be described as small.
The Coast Redwood undergoes a similar self-pruning process, whereby the trees drop lower branches or branches that are not receiving significant sunlight. They drop branches frequently and without warning. In addition, the entire tree often uproots due to heavy winds, blocking roads or destroying houses and lives. They drop branches all year round, in any weather. Drought, such as caused by global warming, causes them to drop even more branches. And, worst of all, there’s a lot of them around here. A whole lot of them. Each one of them just waiting to drop a branch on a passing cyclist, or worse, on a contributing member of society.
Since your memo has adequately demonstrated that dangerous trees are incompatible with trails, and that no alternative to tree removal is feasible, we need to act immediately to remove all trees, especially Coast Redwood trees, capable of dropping branches or falling across any trail, lest we be forced to decommission hundreds of miles of local trails or be inundated with lawsuits.
Humboldt contains over a thousand miles of trails, many of which are through forests composed almost entirely of the life-destroying Coast Redwood. If the average height of one of these horrific trees is 100ft, we need to clear, on average, 100ft on either side of the trail, or a 200ft wide swath along all trails.
Fortunately, as a side benefit, if we clear this 200ft swath for 200 miles of trail, the County can sell the resulting 4800 acres of timber for approximately $500,000,000, using the figures from a GAO report on the Headwaters forest – a nice boon for the general fund. It might even be enough to cover the resulting lawsuits.
In addition, this will greatly improve the aesthetics of all local trails. It is obvious that people value clear views over views of trees, and we should carry out any actions that improve the visibility from local trails. If we want to provide tourists with the full Los Angeles experience, where they can be not exposed to any natural environment, we could even install concrete structures around trails, preventing them from ever being forced to see the unsightly trees that remain. Clearly everyone decided to visit or live in Humboldt because they wanted to be surrounded by concrete and shielded from trees, and we should make sure this is provided on all trails.
I am very glad that you fully realize the dangers of trees, and how their complete removal is needed to stem the thousands of tree-related fatalities that Humboldt could experience every year. It is clear that trees alongside trails present an unacceptable risk, and that any possible risk from any source must be mitigated from all activities that constitute outdoor recreation, as trail users are unable to accept any risk from their activities. I am also glad your memo clearly shows that the actual desires of the populace are irrelevant, and how we need to make decisions for their own good.
I believe we should start by improving the safety of trails in the Arcata Community Forest, the Headwaters Reserve, and Redwood National Park, as these areas provide the lethal combination of a large number of Coast Redwoods and a large number of visitors. We may wish to clear more than 100ft on either side of every trail, as some of these areas contain trees of greater height that will still pose a risk to people innocently enjoying outdoor recreation. The statistics don’t lie – trees are the number one hazard to anyone outdoors, and are capable of killing millions of people every year – and there is no alternative to removing them, nor can trail users accept any risk. Plus, with the improved aesthetics, these areas should immediately see a huge surge in visitors after removal of the unsightly trees.
We’ll just have to hope that no misguided citizen starts collecting signatures on a measure to ban tree removal, and that the federal government doesn’t try to block our critical control of these assault trees, capable of dropping many large branches at once. It is clear that this tiny section of trees poses a huge danger to the populace, far more than all the other trees along trails, and we have to act on it.
I would show up at the BOS meeting to heap praise upon this memo and talk about how critical county-wide tree removal is, but unfortunately I made the mistake of being gainfully employed, so instead I am posting this here in hopes that they will see the light and take action to eliminate any possible risk to anyone anywhere from any source no matter how statistically improbable or how contrary to past events or common sense. And now, I’m off to bed – There’s a slim chance I’ll live through the night, as there’s at least two trees in the local area – so I need to make sure to get this out while I still have time.
Thank you for your support in improving Humboldt’s trail safety and aesthetics!
I personally am ok with the risk. We all cross a road every day and are far more likely to get hit by a car then have a tree fall on us. The county quoted 3 instances going back 28 years throughout the state to illustrate the risk. Pretty shoddy research if you are trying to convince someone of the danger. Why not use alternate #5. Put the trail in and leave the trees. Deal with the extremely occasional injury as we all do in life, if & when it occurs.
Time to get Julia Butterfly Hill back for some more tree sitting…
There are trails all over the state of Ca. that have higher threat zones than this. Redwoods present a lot of the same dangers but yet there are trails in the redwood forests in Humboldt. I think there trying to scare everyone so they don’t have to build the trail.
This is coming from someone that used to do logging and salvage in northern Ca. so I know the risks well enough.