FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010
NORTH COAST CITIZENS AND CONSERVATION GROUPS FILE SUIT TO PROTECT ANCIENT REDWOODS FROM CALTRANS HIGHWAY PROJECT
SAN FRANCISCO ? A coalition of local citizens and conservation organizations filed suit today in San Francisco Superior Court to protect the ancient redwoods of Richardson Grove State Park in Northern California. The lawsuit challenges Caltrans’ approval of a controversial highway widening and realignment project. According to the lawsuit, Caltrans violated the California Environmental Quality Act in approving the project, which poses unacceptable risks to Richardson Grove State Park, its ancient redwoods, endangered species, and the rural region behind the fabled ?redwood curtain.? The project involves cutting down numerous trees and threatens the survival of almost one hundred more.
“Caltrans has not shown that this project will not harm our priceless park. We cannot risk damaging the old growth redwoods which Richardson Grove State Park was created to protect, said Kerul Dyer, Richardson Grove campaign coordinator for the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC).
“The project is dangerous to the grove and isn’t necessary to address any known safety issue.”
“Caltrans wants to cut through and pave over the life-giving roots of ancient redwoods in one of California?s most-loved state parks, yet expects us to believe there won’t be any damage,” said Peter Galvin, conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Caltrans? failure to follow the law puts these old-growth trees and the endangered species dependent on them at unacceptable risk.”
The Environmental Impact Report prepared by Caltrans failed to acknowledge the full extent of the project’s impacts, as required by state law, including the effects of cutting through and paving over the widespread but shallow network of roots holding Richardson Grove together, the consequences of stockpiling lead-contaminated soil in an area draining to the wild and scenic South Fork Eel River, and the far-reaching impacts of opening the road to larger trucks. Caltrans also failed to adopt legally required measures to lessen these impacts and failed to consider less damaging alternatives.
Joining EPIC and the Center for Biological Diversity as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Trisha Lotus, Jeffery Hedin, Bruce Edwards, Loreen Eliason, and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. Trisha Lotus is the great granddaughter of Henry Devoy, who in 1922 transferred to California the initial redwood forest which became Richardson Grove State Park. Jeffrey Hedin is a disabled Vietnam War Veteran, an elected commissioner with the Piercy Fire Protection District, and a volunteer responder to emergencies in Mendocino and Humboldt counties. Bruce Edwards is licensed contractor who frequently travels the highway through Richardson Grove in both directions on a daily basis for his work. Loreen Eliason is a Humboldt County native and the proprietor of Riverwood Inn. Built in 1937 and located at the beginning of the Avenue of the Giants, the Riverwood Inn is the last original “roadhouse” on Highway 101 in Humboldt County.
The lawsuit was prepared and filed with the pro bono assistance of Philip Gregory, former Congressman Pete McCloskey and Stuart Gross, attorneys from the renowned litigation firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy. The firm’s high-caliber lawyering and dedication to socially just causes have won it statewide and national recognition. Sharon Duggan, an expert on environmental law with an emphasis on forestry regulation joined with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in the preparation of the lawsuit.
According to former Congressman McCloskey, “This case is about Caltrans ignoring the science, the historic and economic value Richardson Grove, and the will of Californians. All of these factors weigh heavily in favor of protecting these ancient and iconic redwoods from a project that Caltrans admits will have no impact on safety. These patriotic individuals and organizations have stood up against Caltrans and in favor of common sense.
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy is honored to represent them in this fight.”
Contact: Kerul Dyer
Environmental Protection Information Center
(707) 834-3358
Peter Galvin
Center for Biological Diversity
(707) 986-2600
Patricia Clary
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics,
707-445-5100 ext. 205
Stuart Gross
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
(650) 697-6000
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 18, 2010 at 8:28 am
Anonymous
Eric this is a different topic, but on your radio show last night you asked if Scientific American or other popular science magazines with a progressive slant had dealt with the BP disaster. I just went to the website and I didn’t find anything on point yet, but I did learn that the universe itself is leaking!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-universe-leaking-energy
June 18, 2010 at 9:43 am
Early riser
Ho hum, another spurious lawsuit.
June 18, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Anonymous
Much ado about nothing.
June 18, 2010 at 1:57 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Fortunately, a court of law will get to decide whether it’s “spurious” or “much ado about nothing,” not blog commenters. We’ll see what happens.
June 18, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Anonymous
All of the nonprofits and the schools will suffer if the event fails. Good for Kirk Girard for pointing that out.
June 18, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Anonymous
bullshit. the schools haven’t been paid, what an excuse to hold the community hostage to the stooge and piss-poor creature tom dimmick. he is a slime ball. in this only for himself.
June 18, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Early riser
But before “a court of law gets to decide” that the case has no merit, how many gullible suckers will contribute big bucks to EPIC and their lawyers? Many, EPIC hopes. That’s the entire point of this “lawsuit.”
June 18, 2010 at 8:35 pm
the reasonable anonymous
I think 2:28 and 4:11 are on the wrong thread.
June 18, 2010 at 9:57 pm
ED Denson
Dear Anon, I think that the SA also suggested that another view was that perhaps the universe is not leaking. Did you read the piece about time not existing? Its awfully difficult to distinguish science from religion these days.
June 18, 2010 at 10:20 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Huh? Time may not “exist” at all?
Well I wouldn’t go that far, but I’d certainly say that there is never enough time in the day…
June 18, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Eric Kirk
The lawsuit was reported on KGO tonight. I was on my way down to the Bay Area and listening to Gene Burns who had dedicated his show to calls about unemployment. It was a pretty sad hour.
Then the 10:00 news came on and at the tail end was a cryptic sentence-story – “Environmentalists in Humboldt County have sued Caltrans to prevent a wideing of the road which they say might damage the roots of old growth trees.”
As worded, it made Humboldt County environmentalists sound trite and petty after an hour of people talking about their ruined lives due to the economic downturn. I just don’t think this is the time to try to generate sympathy for trees because their roots “might” be damaged. As someone who considers himself part of the environmentalist community, I think this one is going to come back on us.
I was going to listen for more coverage, but then Bill Wattenberg came on and started whining about the “inquisition” those mean congressional representatives put the poor hapless BP CEO through. Could only stomach it for so long before I switched to the classical station for some real violins.
June 19, 2010 at 1:27 am
the reasonable anonymous
Well the fact that a mainstream media report makes an environmental concern “sound trite” is not exactly anything new. If environmentalists avoided any issue where media may tend to make their concerns “sound trite,” well they would be left with a very narrow range of more clearly extreme ecological pollution problems to work on.
In truth, I think both the advocates of the RG project and its opponents are guilty of chronically, seriously overstating their cases.
To hear one side tell it, the project would be an ecological catastrophe for the Grove, and would usher in a wave of Big Box development that would quickly hollow out the County’s economy and suck profits out of the area while destroying local businesses.
To hear the other side tell it, without the project Humboldt will wither away from its extreme isolation, whereas with the project local businesses will experience a major rennaissance, and will soon flourish and expand, making us a bustling hub of export-based manufacturing.
I’m all for leaving the Grove alone, because I find the arguments in favor of the project quite underwhelming. But I also suspect that if the project goes forward, most if not all of the Old Growth trees will survive. At the same time I suspect that the economic “benefits” touted by project proponents will be equally unimpressive, and not prove to be significant for any but a handful of businesses.
I’m sure my position on this would please neither side. I can live with that.
June 19, 2010 at 10:13 am
anon says
cliff clendenan has been a complete failure and very duplicitous on this issue. He says one thing to his “fortuna” people hoping that people in so hum don’t get wind of it, then says the complete opposite to people in so hum hoping that people in fortuna don’t get wind of it.
i’ll NEVER vote for that guy again!!
June 19, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Anonymous
Clif supports the widening of the highway at Richardson Grove. So does Estelle. So does everyone who has to work for a living.
June 20, 2010 at 10:46 am
Businessman
Correct, 10:13. Richardson Grove is shaping up as a contest between the working people of Humboldt County and the pot growers who not only don’t work, they don’t pay a dime in taxes on their vast earnings here.
June 21, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Anonymous
Fork tongue in the road= clendenan. Plays both sides of any issue= clendenan
June 21, 2010 at 12:21 pm
stereotyped
I work and I oppose the project. Maybe the Business man should study CEQA. Caltrans is saying there will be no impact from a project that will negatively affect “protected” ancient redwood trees in a public State Park. Caltran’s environental analysis of the project is erronious, and should be challenged. It seems that the only people that dont oppose the project are those that rely on campaign donations or paychecks or news sources from proponents of a certain big box store development that is on the horizon.
June 21, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Anonymous
Clif has been very consistent on the issue 12:06. You are obsessed with him.
June 21, 2010 at 2:20 pm
anon
The only thing that cliff is consistent on is being inconsistent. Pay attention to his words and you will see that he talks around any issue. But on the RG issue he said one thing to one group that was for RG, then the opposite to people that opposed RG.
June 21, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Anonymous
I have never heard him say he opposed the widening. I have argued with him on the point even back during the campaign. He has said that he is critical of how Caltrans has handled the whole thing but I have never heard him voice anything resembling opposition to the project.