From Peter Galvin, Center for Biological Diversity.
SAN FRANCISCO— On September 27, 2010, five individuals and three environmental advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the California Department of Transportation challenging a major construction project along Highway 101 through Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County. The project will destroy and damage prized old-growth redwoods to allow access for large commercial trucks. The lawsuit — the second suit citizens have filed to stop the controversial project — was filed due to Caltrans’ failure to conduct a thorough environmental review of the project, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
“We can see no other option than to seek help from the courts to protect this threatened grove,” said Kerul Dyer, Richardson Grove Campaign coordinator for the Environmental Protection Information Center. “Caltrans not only failed to evaluate the harm this complex project would cause to these ancient trees, they railroaded this multi-million-dollar project through, disregarding the public’s concerns and grossly understating the impacts the project would have.”
“We are determined not to let this protected grove of old-growth redwoods and the endangered species that depend on them be cut into for the sake of letting a few more oversized trucks speed through the grove,” said Peter Galvin, conservation director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Caltrans should scrap this misguided project, which has been opposed by dozens of groups, local business owners, scientists, elected representatives and tens of thousands of concerned citizens.”
Bess Bair, lead plaintiff on the federal lawsuit, was born and raised in Humboldt County near Richardson Grove. Bair is the granddaughter of Bess and Fred Hartsook, originators of the historic Hartsook Inn, near the Richardson Grove. Bair joined the lawsuit to carry on her century-long family legacy of protecting the majestic giant redwoods from harm. “I know these trees intimately, I was raised among them,” said Bair. “There are ways to resolve this situation that do not put these trees at risk and preserve them for all Californians.”
More under the fold.
A lawsuit was filed under state law in June, for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act. A “finding of no significant impact” that Caltrans published in May contradicts the agency’s own conclusions that the project is likely to harm or destroy ancient redwoods in the grove. The newly filed Federal Complaint details numerous violations of federal law due to inadequate environmental review for the project; it also cites Caltrans’ own findings that the project would cause harm to old-growth trees. The project would harm and destroy ancient and irreplaceable redwoods in the grove by cutting their roots or compacting hundreds of cubic yards of soil and paving over the roots. The work will affect at least 72 old-growth trees, and Caltrans acknowledges that “adverse effects to old-growth trees may be a significant impact to this unique natural community.”
The project is opposed by individuals from throughout California, the Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Save Richardson Grove Coalition, North Coast Environmental Center, Friends of the Eel River, and the Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters, among others.
Background
Established in 1922, Richardson Grove State Park was recently rated as one of the top 100 state parks in the United States. The park attracts thousands of visitors from around the world every year to explore one of the last protected stands of accessible old-growth redwoods. Drivers first encounter this significant old-growth forest when heading north on Highway 101. This popular tourist destination has provided many people with a transformative experience walking through some of the oldest living things on the planet. The park also provides essential habitat for threatened and endangered species like the marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl, and its creeks still support runs of imperiled salmon and steelhead.
Caltrans first proposed the highway-expansion project in 2007 with minimal environmental and public review. Faced with immediate and widespread community opposition, the agency prepared an environmental assessment but has still has not shown that its experimental, unproven construction methods will not irreparably harm Richardson Grove. Opposition to the project has continued to grow, led by the Plaintiffs, and Save Richardson Grove Coalition, a diverse group of community members including economists, business owners, and scientists. More than 25,000 concerned citizens have contacted Caltrans officials and elected representatives urging denial of the project.
The proposed widening does not serve the region’s best interests and threatens the area’s environment. Caltrans claims this “realignment” project is needed to legally accommodate large-truck travel on this section of highway. However, it appears from Caltrans’ own statements and signage that this portion of road is already designated for larger trucks and that Caltrans has exaggerated potential safety problems. Caltrans has not established this project is necessary either for safety or for goods movement and the economy. Since smaller-sized commercial trucks already travel through the grove to deliver goods to Humboldt County, the best alternative would be to leave the highway as it is and retain the integrity of the grove.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 2, 2010 at 10:25 am
Gordon Inkeles
Erik,
It would be interesting to have your comments on the legal issues involved in these lawsuits. Do they look like serious threats to the project–or frivolous maneuvers?
October 2, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Eric Kirk
I haven’t really looked at them closely Gordon, but I’ll try to find some time to do that.
October 2, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Dave Kirby
This is all horseshit,
October 2, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Anonymous
too bad since the motto of our county emblem is “humboldt county, in the redwoods”, it’s even on our sample ballots. so essential our founding fathers’ put them in our official motto. each individual redwood is important, now and into the future, you are a horseshit, dave kirby. maybe our county motto should be “stumps of redwoods”.
October 3, 2010 at 6:43 am
Mitch
There are such fundamental problems with our economic system and our society’s values that some of us have been forced into day-to-day lying to ourselves in trying to protect the things we love.
The endangered species act is defended on the grounds that a tiny, doomed population of some species must be protected at all costs. The reality is that the endangered species act provides a critical tool to defend ecosystems; the defense of a species that is doomed anyway is simply cover. That’s the only way the ecosystems can be defended under our legal system, and there’s no way to pass a law directly preventing the “progress” developers want unless you can find a doomed species.
Same with Richardson Grove. No — the proposed changes to the highway will probably not seriously impact Richardson Grove. But they WILL seriously impact Humboldt County, and the only way to prevent or delay the further Americanization of Humboldt is to keep some things a tiny bit difficult here.
When we have a Congress and a Supreme Court that values the planet over the extraction industries, that values future generations over a quick buck, that values peacefulness and quiet and beauty over development and sprawl… when that miracle happens, nobody will need to try to find cover justifications for doing the right thing.
October 3, 2010 at 7:41 am
Dave Kirby
In the three decades that I have lived here I have never seen a more deceptive “environmental” crusade than this one. The lies and suppositions put forth by the opposition to realignment are baseless as far as damage to old growth Redwoods goes. One only has to drive the Avenue of the Giants to refute the claims as to root damage to the trees. The anti big box crowd are behind much of this and have convinced some well meaning folks that there is a threat to old growth that doesn’t exist. There are a number of people who really believe that the project will entail cutting down old growth thanks to a steady stream of disinformation on this issue.
October 3, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Jim
I’m with you Dave,
Mitch gave himself away when he said the enviro arguments were BS and he was just superstitious about the big boxes (general tip for those of this view: go to your elected representatives to lobby them to ban big box stores, rather than trying to use facetious arguments).
October 3, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Eric Kirk
Same with Richardson Grove. No — the proposed changes to the highway will probably not seriously impact Richardson Grove. But they WILL seriously impact Humboldt County, and the only way to prevent or delay the further Americanization of Humboldt is to keep some things a tiny bit difficult here.
I’m not really convinced of that even. It has been argued by some of advocates of the road revision that it will actually allow more small businesses to compete more effectively with big boxes, because big boxes can work the off-loading into costs of doing business more efficiently. There are already plenty of Winco and Target trucks coming through, and I believe that the only reason we don’t see Home Depot trucks coming is that they have one in Crescent City and their Oregon warehousing is closer than their Bay Area warehousing.
There are legitimate questions about the process and whether the correct impact studies have been conducted, and I remain relatively agnostic on the issue of whether it’s a good idea. But the forum I attended last spring did little to enlighten. I wish somebody would organize a forum where advocates of different positions were brought together to discuss it so that they could argue with their opponents rather than the straw-men they set up.
October 9, 2010 at 7:41 am
Anonymous
Eric, you stated over on Heraldo’s blog that the Richardson Grove project is “a meaningless road alteration”. I couldn’t agree more! That’s why I oppose this $10,000,000 boondoggle in one of the world’s most beautiful places. Let’s spend the 10M on something meaningful.