Home > Richardson Grove > Richardson Grove Highway Project spawns Lawsuit #2

Richardson Grove Highway Project spawns Lawsuit #2

[Press Release.]

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.”

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.


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.

  1. humboldturtle
    September 30, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    They used to bring freight in by train. If you want more bulk in your lots fix the railroad. So, things cost a bit more here. It’s worth it.

    (Insert endless back and forth here)

  2. Decline to State
    September 30, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Better than 90% (my guess) of the traffic through the grove is by other than commercial traffic. Most people enjoy the grove as it is, a funnel slowing down traffic in and out of Humboldt. It’s an emotional gateway.

    Commercial traffic has other/better options such as short sea shipping.

    Caltrans out of Humboldt 101!

  3. In the Middle
    September 30, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    said Bair. “There are ways to resolve this situation that do not put these trees at risk and preserve them for all Californians.”——

    So, we ask again and again…if there are ways, what are they? Solutions to the challenges of moving product in and out of Humboldt that effect business growth and employment here in Humboldt, (NOT bix box)Those of us who have businesses that employ several people need to be able to provide good jobs with benefits AND be able to compete in the open market. I’m not suggesting that the Proprosed Richardson Grove Project is the answer to our problems, but I’m wondering what a viable solution to the problem is. And YES folks I’ve attended every local meeting on the project and have yet to hear ANY solutions…lots and lots of fighting and mostly disrespect from both sides!

  4. senioritis
    September 30, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    I remember many years ago Jerry Partain surmising words to the effect of:

    ‘If you want to bring more tourists and business to Humboldt… build a wider highway’.

    He’s probably right. It’s that simple. And it will happen… eventually.

  5. September 30, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Save a tree – make everyone pay out a fortune. Works for me.

  6. Decline to State
    September 30, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Thank you Heraldo for making sense of my messed up posting…it helps.

    In the Middle-
    I’m no tree-hugger (retired, after 37 years in the timber industry) but it’s pointless to widen 101 through the grove. I love the redwoods. I love this entrance to Humboldt County and my home.

    I don’t think the railroad truly is a viable alternative to trucking but I DO think short sea shipping is. It seems an obvious solution.

  7. axe projects, not trees
    September 30, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    nobody alive today could even be around to see the onset of another grove like it…to think that they’re only shrinking. And here in our own neck of the woods, where the majority of the remaining tiny percent of forests like these exist, some people still take them for granted.

  8. September 30, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    Thank you Heraldo for making sense of my messed up posting…it helps.

    I’m not sure why the link didn’t work — the code look right.

  9. Decline to State
    September 30, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    the code look right.

    Surely you meant “looked” (past tense) not look…but who am I to nitpick with my huge error. Again, thank you.

  10. Decline to State
    September 30, 2010 at 6:18 pm


  11. Anonymous
    September 30, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    and you know they’re not cutting any old growth, right?

  12. September 30, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    Surely you meant “looked” (past tense) not look

    Which goes to show why I failed to spot your coding error.

  13. Jack Z
    September 30, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    These law suits (bogus or not) need to be backed by a minimal $1.5 mil bond.
    Surfrider foundation just got lucky!

  14. axe projects, not trees
    September 30, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Anonymous 6:18…you know they want to widen the freeway through one of the oldest forests on the planet that happens to be in our county, right?

  15. Mr. Nice
    September 30, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Folks who cut roads want that extra $4,000 on the median household income stat. The average Humboldt fam should be at least as flossy as folks in Hopland.

    September 30, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    Flossy and glossy,

    parents already get to claim a tax dependency on their children until the age of 26. What more subsidies can there be had by the family unit?

    Hmmmm, no on prop 8 – that way, more tax subsidies can go to the “religious acting families”, you know a man and a woman. Now, lets not get into divorce court discussions and all the processes with breaking something apart and auctioning off the dependents to the most appropriate entity, so says the establishment.

    Anyhow, NEPA, NEPA, and more NEPA!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  17. Anonymous
    September 30, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    They can make whatever silly claims they want (such as old growth being cut) — that sort of rhetoric will fly with clueless reporters, but in the courtroom it won’t. They’ll lose the lawsuit.

    September 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Quoting Jerry Partain about anything that has any environmental importance is absurdly ridiculous.

  19. Pete
    September 30, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    Way to go Humboldt, ruin one of your only assets “a State Park” with a road.

  20. Anonymous
    September 30, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Umm, 7:54, character assignation is not a refutation of the argument put before you. Worse, you didn’t understand the argument that you dismissed out of hand. The commenter said a wider highway would lead to an improved business climate and tourism. He didn’t make a claim about environmental importance.

    And please, don’t use the words “absurdly” and “ridiculous” in the same sentence again. It’s dumbly stupid.

  21. Anonymous
    September 30, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Ahh nuts, I slap him upside the head regarding grammar and then don’t even proofread my on comment. I concede that point.

    September 30, 2010 at 8:03 pm


    The State of California is sooooooooo corrupt in soooooooo many processes that it is a wonder that voters still vote the same way. I guess time must stop first, prior to any inclusionary political changes by the leaders of this country (The People).


  23. anonymous#1
    September 30, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    All the thru traffic should be taken out of the grove. Cal Trans already has the studies and engineering studies done to move the road across the river where it should have been in the first place. You would not even need any new bridges because the freeway to the north and the south is on the east side of the river. It certainly is more expensive but the Grove is already being overly impacted by the traffic. Forty years ago when I first came to Richardson Grove I got out of the care and walked around and checked out the trees. I thought, this is really a cool place, but hey they really should get the cars and trucks out of here. A right of way across the river would also have the potential to accommodate the future railroad that will use the 101 corridor. That is where the original railroad into this county was supposed to go but circumstances at the time sent it on another route. Leave the Grove alone.

  24. Funnygirl
    September 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    How about a ferry on the Eel River to remove all traffic on US 101?

  25. September 30, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    Good one Funny Girl.
    Or build a road on the other side through Dimmick Ranch. They aren’t using it for Reggae Rising anymore. It could work. Or fix Highway 299 for the big truck to use.
    A ferry, that’s a good one.

  26. September 30, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    A four wheel drive ferry.

  27. Jacqbear
    September 30, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    “Short sea shipping” says one of the commenters. So why are we talking expanind road ways not discussing creating a viable small port.

    I love Richardson Grove. On the return journey from the Bay Area that grove signals that I “home” again and everything about me relaxes and quietly celebrates.

  28. Funnyboy says:
    September 30, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    ~When pigs and their piggy cars fly.

  29. Jacqbear
    September 30, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    Sorry for the typos. Are typos catching? Anyway I think my point is made.

  30. September 30, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    Short sea shipping requires long shore men and captains. They make a better wage than truck drivers. Are you suggesting we should trade low wage truck driver jobs for those of dock workers and sea captains that make a living wage? I agree. And we’ll still need the trucks to get stuff to and from the docks.

  31. Anonymous
    September 30, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Normally, I would be quite skeptical about a project of this sort. But, after looking at the proposed plan, I feel Cal-Trans has been sensitive to the concerns surrounding this issue and has put forth a plan that minimally impacts the Redwood Corridor. How many trees, exactly, are scheduled for removal?

  32. Pete
    September 30, 2010 at 10:02 pm


  33. The waste manager
    September 30, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    You aren’t hearing about short sea shipping because Cal Trans has an agenda. Their purpose in life is to move traffic from one place to another as fast as they can. They don’t see trees. They see obstacles, nothing more. Short sea shipping is not in their purview. They can’t see the shipping road in the ocean, just off shore.
    They have a huge staff working on removing those pesky obstacles to get things moving in accordance with their charts and grafts . This is commonly known as tunnel vision. They also have battalions of lawyers with the same mission, “Save the plan and build the road”. They too don’t see the oldest and tallest living things on earth.
    This grove has startled and awed new travelers from the south for over 100 years. This is their first look at these giants that make Humboldt County the ecological treasure we share space with. These travelers should slow down and experience what 2000 years of creation has achieved without our help. But to some they are just obstacles, waiting to be transformed into redwood decks for tract homes in Orange County.

  34. armchair watcher
    September 30, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    What would CalTrans do if they were to completely pave the earth over as they seem to be bent on doing. Would they go on the dole? Or would they tear up their newly built roads to create jobs for their workers? They are in the business of cutting, digging and paving. There is no way to deal with a bureaucratic monster such as this. Destroy to construct. Big business is what CalTrans is. Pretty dismal outlook for beauty, open space and other species.

  35. October 1, 2010 at 6:32 am

    axe projects wrote, “Anonymous 6:18…you know they want to widen the freeway through one of the oldest forests on the planet that happens to be in our county, right?”

    The freeway doesn’t run through Richardson Grove. It starts again a mile or two north of it, though. They’re also not widening the road through Richardson Grove. They’re realigning it by straightening out some of the curves.

    The only half way sensible argument I’ve heard against this project is, ironically, that we’ll be paying millions of dollars for very little actually being done to the road.

  36. jack
    October 1, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Maybe Cal-Trans should rename the project smart-growth. That way they can legally defend substandard CEQA work. The Cutten project, so far has crappy analysis and mitigation and is drawing support from Mark Lovelace. Cal-Trans could solve all their problems easily

  37. axe projects, not trees
    October 1, 2010 at 7:34 am

    armchair watcher…in that scenario, lobbyists at the capital would mysteriously appear, pushing for the development of four-story freeways! They’d work on a PR campaign that included making business owners feel like they were being cheated out of thousands of dollars every month from missed traffic, along with rallying people around the idea that elevated roadways would keep pedestrians safe.

  38. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 8:06 am

    There used to be several ferries negotiating the lower Eel. Fernbridge was built in 1911.

  39. Eurekite
    October 1, 2010 at 8:13 am

    This road-widening project is not necessary. That is why people are opposing it.

    There is already a road. Trucks can ship things to the area, they do it every day. If we need more things brought in from the outside, maybe it would be smarter to produce them locally.

    Everyone should oppose such a project until they hear a really good reason for it, not some sloganeering bullshit like “it’ll create six jobs!”

  40. Anonymoose
    October 1, 2010 at 8:21 am

    The river was much deeper back then. It is filled with sediment and rock from logging and human development now.

  41. olmanriver
    October 1, 2010 at 8:50 am

    It is infuriating for CalTrans not to have one of those pink colored Share the Road sign with the picture of the bicyclist at the south and north end of the Richardson Grove. There were more bicyclists on the road this year than I recall seeing before and NO warning there. Between G’ville and the north end of the Ave of the Giants I have seen two such signs…WHY not at Richardson Grove?!!! If safety is such a concern, why not actually warn people who are driving or peddling through that narrows? Two signs, Cal Trans… (a more conspiratorial view might think they need some more deaths to promote their case, but it is probably just negligence).
    Although going slower would not keep longer trucks in their lanes, it would provide more time for others to react and adjust. Having visited both sides of the fence on this issue, I have returned to my “Enjoy the cathedral, Slow it down” position. What a savings! And then we can take that seemingly always available CalTrans money for our local schools, thank you very much.
    Good coffee fueled these delusions.

    Of course, a separate bike path through there

  42. olmanriver
    October 1, 2010 at 8:58 am

    would be best.

  43. Question Everything
    October 1, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Isn’t the idea that this proect puts trees at risk a bit of a stretch? Anyone familiar with redwoods knows they are very hard to kill, which is why they live so long. Consider the evidence. The original 101 did not kill them (and that work was not done using arborist’s tools under close supervision as is the proposed project). A tree in the area seems to be just fine even though someone dug a house into it’s heart. A bit further down the road there is a tree with a hole so big that you can drive through it.

    This looks more like a made for mass market PR/fundraising campaign than a legidimate environmental issue.

  44. Bolithio
    October 1, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Ya it will be sad when they cut down all the trees in Richardson Grove to facilitate the road re-alignment.

    Oh wait – thats not the plan.

    What about the old growth?

    Ah, no old growth being logged.

    Really? But I read on the EPIC website that the park is going to be destroyed!

    Ya well, maybe eventually. But for now it looks like just some tanoak and young growth conifer right on the road margins.

    But what about those old growth trees right on the road edge?

    Thats not where the project is going to occur. Have you noticed that the OG trees that are close to the road are on the straight part?

    Oh, I guess your right. So what the big deal?

    Good question. But if I was a lawyer who used to sue PALCO every other day, I would be in the market for a good lawsuit to make sure I can keep up with my 4000 sq ft house on Fickle Hill payment, and all my toys too. RG is perfect!

    Sure, play on everyone’s fears about old growth.

    Right. And most people dont even realize that RG has tons of paved roads all through the park, power line easements, tons of buildings, not to mention the hundreds of tourists tromping around it daily.

    Not exactly pristine wilderness.


  45. In the Middle
    October 1, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Yes, it’s true that “trucks can ship things to the area” but it’s at greater cost to consumers, and how about the businesses (local NOT Big Box) that are shipping out of the area…they too need to compete outside of Humboldt. AND yes, currently trucks are carring product through the Grove (smaller trucks) that are cross-docked in Sac, OAK, and SFO adding additional costs to consumers- with the exception of Ag Trucks (who already have an exemption). Again, you can debate and debate…but until viable solutions are offered–(other than short sea shipping and a train), you should stop dividing this community!

  46. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 9:29 am

    EPIC’s propaganda on this issue makes Goldman Sachs look like “Honest Abe.” I guess it’s only OK to lie to get money if you are an activist.

  47. Time to get real
    October 1, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Why is short sea shipping not a viable way to get things here? 90% of our gas comes by barge. It is the answer for this area and it would strengthen our port and it’s long rage goals. Get on board!

  48. The waste manager
    October 1, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Question everything, Hard to kill redwoods? We have done a pretty good job of it in the last 150 years, wiping out 90%. Lets just cut the rest and be done with it.

  49. October 1, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Hard to kill redwoods? We have done a pretty good job of it in the last 150 years, wiping out 90%.

    Do you even live up here? In case you didn’t know, even if you cut a redwood tree down, they usually regrow from suckers in the stumps.

    I can’t believe how some of you keep repeating the same misinformation over and over again. Then again, I guess it works, since people who don’t know any better end up believing it.

  50. Bolithio
    October 1, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Lets just cut the rest and be done with it.

    Well according EPIC this is just about to happen. Send us some money and we will fight this impending destruction!!

  51. axe projects, not trees
    October 1, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Pro-project arguments like Bolithio’s are spent. They’re the same rhetoric we’ve been fed forever, and look where it’s got us. Time to put the brakes on it. There’s no transportation problem at all…the money monster needs to be fed, that’s it.

    Throughout history, developers have been saying “we’re only gonna take away a little more”. Look what it adds up to! Do you feel ripped off living in humboldt county? so close to all these trees and beaches…so far away from bumper-to-bumper traffic and concrete jungles? If you want even bigger roads with even bigger trucks, move!

  52. Anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 10:53 am

    The only money monsters here are the 501’s sucking the county dry with bogus lawsuits, costly obstructions and needless division. Oganizatons that once served legidimate roles are now short both causes and cash. They have been reduced to unproductive burdens. Time to rethink your missions. Seems to be plenty of need around here in terms of poverty; child welfare and drug abuse.

  53. 69er
    October 1, 2010 at 10:59 am

    I love it here, been here since 1946 when my parents moved here so my dad could destroy the redwoods for Dolbeer & Carson. I worked the woods and sawmills for a few years also destroying them. Now most of them are in the parks and they are plentiful and enough to satisfy any reasonable person. My two sons left the area to find decent work because all of the good paying jobs were disapearing and they knew it. Now even the pulp mill is a thing of the past and the only export we have left are the offspring of those few left here young enough to reproduce. I will be satisfied to finish out my time here as it is but what about the future generations, no hope seen for them unless you who care wake up and make something happen.

  54. axe projects, not trees
    October 1, 2010 at 11:13 am

    “Oganizatons that once served legidimate roles are now short both causes and cash.” Right, anon…CalTrans being one of them? We don’t need this project. Never have, never will. Period.

    69er, my sypmathies…but you of all people maybe oughta consider that nobody’s slamming you and yours. If you live here too, you might be considerate of the people who don’t want Humboldt to degrade like the rest of the state for everybody’s sake. If your two sons wanted to establish a big income for themselves in Humboldt through logging or fishing or similar business, better sooner than later than those industries killed themselves, eh? Maybe if they’d have listened to all the crazy hippies and implemented sensible practices a hundred years sooner…

    …but we’re talking about the future, let’s not make it worse!

  55. Question Everything
    October 1, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Is there any evidence Humbold County will be degraded? This arguement that we are one road widening from becoming LA is a straw man. First, LA is warm all year; second, LA has places to shop that sell more than “glassware” and third, it doesn’t rain 200 days a year. While we who live here can cope with the wet and grey, most people can’t.

    At the rate of growth we experienced over th last 50 years our population will double in another 50 years giving us the same pupulation density as Vermont. Hardy LA.

  56. Reinventing The Wheel
    October 1, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Local lumber barons were deeply opposed to construction of the Golden Gate Bridge fearing the added access would reveal the devastation to thousands more and swell the ranks of the Save The Redwoods League.

    Industry’s political vacuum has been filled by speculators, and they too want MORE! More poverty wage big boxes and the remote homes they can’t afford.

    Hence, more poverty, crime, drug abuse, more traffic, less tax base, closing schools, decaying infrastructure…

    Oh, and the temporary boom in pawn shops, check cashing, storage unit, rental agencies, job placement, bail bonds, neighborhood liquor stores, and second-hand clothing…

    The other “growth” missed by the local liberal media.

  57. Reinventing The Wheel
    October 1, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Ask any Census worker about Humboldt’s “rural-life” and they will tell you about thousands of illegal structures, the maze of roads, the trout farms, orchards, pot, vineyards, lakes and Olympic swimming pools. Similar development and land use took place in Southern California 60 years ago…when the water silted, flows diminished, and their salmon runs disappeared.


  58. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Question Everything…but his own arguments? Ask yourself how the area has already degraded. If the increase in population we’re experiencing right now vs. 10 years ago is such a teeny tiny amount, double would be mammoth. Where in humboldt do you reside, and how much do you pay attention? Also, there’s no practical comparison between Humboldt County and Vermont…our area would definitely degrade to support their population density. Vermont is next door to the likes of New York and Massachusetts…New Jersey is only a five hour drive away, fer cryin out loud. By your model, which is even optomistic, a neighborhood on fickle hill will start to look more like ritzy parts of vermont while the rest of the county started to look more like downtown New York, beginning with Eureka.

  59. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    …and nobody said we’re one more road away from being LA. LA didn’t happen in a day. Besides all this…fricking seriously, you’re making fuggin freeway projects a priority.

  60. Bolithio
    October 1, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Guess what? The population is increasing, everywhere, and there is nothing we can do about that. So get ready for an increase in population density, increases in development, and so on.

    Widening 500 ft of road is not going to degrade this county.

  61. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    Bolithio, widening 500ft. of road right through the middle of one of this county’s greatest assets, an irreplaceable treasure to the world, sets as low a standard for our own integrity as it gets. You, too, are guilty of making a 500 ft. freeway project a priority.

    Also, believe it or not, there’s no sense in making irreversible changes to how our locality operates when there’s even a small chance of it facilitating exactly what everybody says it will every time the subject comes up, because that’s what’s happened everywhere else.

  62. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    do you pro-freeway people ever look at stuff like this and…ya know…give it some thought????:


  63. Bolithio
    October 1, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Im not for or against this project.

    I am against BS though, and calling the 101 where is passes RG our “greatest asset” is ridiculous. EPIC is full of shit. There are no old growth trees proposed for removal. Read it again:

    There are no old growth trees proposed for removal.

    And as Ive said over and over, Richardson Grove is chalk full of paved roads, gravel roads, dozens and dozens of permanent structures including a gas station, power line easements, plumbing and septic, not to mention the hundreds of tourists who stomp around it daily.

    The “gateway” that everyone is crying over is not going to be touched. You are still going to see the big trees as you drive by. This reminds me of when earth first had a whole group of kids sitting in this grove of trees by a PL THP. Funny thing was that the trees they were sitting in were in a no-cut area the whole time. lol

  64. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    If that’s where the bold type belongs, your point is worthless bolithio. You wanna piss in the pond because you don’t like the people who swim there. You say you aren’t for or against it, but your inner politics shine through bright and clear.

  65. Oldphart
    October 1, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    The folks who have their panties in a bunch over this need to pick their fights. You’re gonna lose this one as it is a Federal Highway, not a state highway and you are going up against Cal-Trans. I too am not for or against this project, but sheesh. My question is – what will the economy of Humboldt county be like when pot is lealized? What wonderful jobs will be available? Oh no, let’s not create any jobs, people will move here! That is what I am hearing from a lot of you bloggers.

  66. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    yeah, oldphart…pick your fights. The “jobs” argument doesn’t fly in favor of this project either. If “creating jobs” flips your thumbs up for freeways, you could say the same thing about losing this project for the sake of all the local jobs it would protect, including smaller transport jobs and related industries…all in addition to other jobs that could be created entirely locally as we grow from the inside out on a small business level, not multinationalcorpexpress that’s slowly taking over the state. Humboldt should grow as needed, not just as facilitated. Facilitate growth to accomodate growth dependent on growth…the endless cycle…

  67. Oldphart
    October 1, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    I’m not talking about this project – do it, don’t doo it – I don’t care. It won’t change my life one bit. but the attitude that no jobs should be created in Humboldt County because it will cause growth is just stupid. The population of the USA is doing to increase and to act as though none of that increase will be felt here is stupid. Now, if you want to claim ignorance, then that can be fixed. Stupid can’t.

  68. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    “no jobs” attitude? is that what you see as opposition to the project?

  69. High Finance
    October 1, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Well I am in favor of this project. It is a safety issue as well as one of commerce. It is absurd that our entire economy is built upon three roads & one of them has this bottleneck that CalTrans is ready, willing & able to fix. It will only cost a few second or third growth trees.

    I drive this road at least twice a year. None of you can tell me you are comfortable at having a big truck come at you at the 80 miles per hour & you are literality six inches away from certain & gruesome death.

  70. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    So you only drive the road a few times a year, high finance. I’ve never seen a bottleneck of any kind there, and I drive it all the time. I’ve only seen one accident in at least five years…if the car could have driven faster, as this project will allow, it would have been much worse.

    The metaphorical business bottleneck doesn’t exist either. You, Mr. High Finance, are among the wealthy, not the majority.

  71. Bolithio
    October 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    You say my argument is worthless yet offer no argument of your own besides “your wrong” and vague political accusations.

  72. Un-Named
    October 1, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    cough bullshit cough, Bullithio. Seriously, why don’t you and high finance move into a condo together in some big city where you can blog side by side together all day about how great everything in your big city is going, and look forward to your next vacation to humboldt, where healthy forests are an unquestionable priority of the locals. It’s already been said, y’all are too dumb to be part of the real problem, but that’s not to say you’re helping any either. Good night, foolio’s.

  73. The waste manager
    October 1, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Just listened to Meg Whitman in the first governor’s debate talk about sucking the water out of northern Calif to satisfy her So. Cal supporters. They would love to see the dams go on the Klamath so they could suck more water out down stream in Calif. No mention at all of saving the fishery here. Same issue as Richardson Grove. We are just a resource to be used and exploited, then thrown to the wolves.

  74. Mr. Nice
    October 1, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    So you only drive the road a few times a year, high finance. I’ve never seen a bottleneck of any kind there, and I drive it all the time. I’ve only seen one accident in at least five years…if the car could have driven faster, as this project will allow, it would have been much worse.

    I drive on this road all the damn time too and I would be glad if they fixed that shit just like Confusion Hill and just like resurfacing from Fortuna south. Thank you Cal Trans see you at Angelo’s every day when you do this. I don’t see why anyone is worried about more city folk coming up, they ain’t going to Northern Mendo either.

    The metaphorical business bottleneck doesn’t exist either.
    You, Mr. High Finance, are among the wealthy, not the majority.

    Yea it does dude, they gotta run those raggedy ass looking like they belong in Cuba trucks on that road. This is 2010, the government already forces truckers to install all type of air quality bullshit on STAA-approved trucks which they already own and the same folks can’t even use our road.

  75. low down
    October 1, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    HiFi thinks we should spend $10 Million on this project so that trucks can drive through the grove at almost three times the posted speed limit. Protect those law breakers, at all cost is his approach.

    What about when those same trucks drive through Eurkea at three times the speed limit. Should all pedestrians, bicyclists and ant other car get out of the way so they can do their thing?

    And BTW, almost ALL the STAA traffic will be barreling on through. This project has almost nothing to do with Humboldt County business and everything to do with getting rid of the bottleneck to allow through traffic.

    Don’t believe it? Read CalTran’s EIR. It state that as the primary reason for the project.

  76. low down
    October 1, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    yes, typos are contagious.

  77. Pete
    October 1, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    That is a great idea Un-Named. Those that don’t appreciate the unique qualities of this State Park should move to the a large city. They will then enjoy all the wonderful qualities of pavement with the added bonus of having no forests to contend with.

  78. the reasonable anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    “This project has …everything to do with getting rid of the bottleneck to allow through traffic.”

    Through to WHERE? Crescent City? Or do you really think trucking companies are chomping at the bit to send their Portland/Seattle-and-other-points-north cargo hundreds of miles out of the way through rough terrain instead of up the flat, easy, and more direct I-5 corridor?

    Look, I’m against the Richardson Grove project, which will cost a lot, im my opinion will accomplish little if any benefit, and may cause at least some harm to some of the old growth trees. But the argument that it’s somehow all about “through-traffic” just seems kinda loopy.

  79. the reasonable anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    “This reminds me of when earth first had a whole group of kids sitting in this grove of trees by a PL THP. Funny thing was that the trees they were sitting in were in a no-cut area the whole time.”

    You’ve related this amusing little anecdote before. And it wouldn’t particulalry surprise me if it were true. But as presented it’s a little light on specifics. I’m curious as to which THP you’re referring to, or at least what watershed and what year.

  80. Bolithio
    October 1, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    I want to say 2004, maybe 5 and I think it was in Nanning Creek or vicinity.

  81. the reasonable anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    I don’t know much about what was being cut in ’04 and ’05, but I did see some HUGE old-growth redwoods being hauled out of there around ’01 or ’02. In the THP area itself there were some truly massive stumps. I remember being amazed that there was still old-growth of that dimension in such close proximity to Scotia, and wondering how/why they had escaped being harvested in previous decades.

  82. The waste manager
    October 1, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Heaven forbid we should have a bottleneck in the way of progress. Is it really that hard to slow down and take an extra 20 minuets to get to San Francisco? I mean really reasonable, you are not being very reasonable. There are bottlenecks on the road to everywhere. It is slow in Del Norte county in many places, slow on 299, really slow on 36. It is slow getting off the Golden Gate bridge, so shall we widen it to 20 lanes? It is slow at the 880 and 101 interchange. What in the world are we going to do? Maybe we should pave and stripe another 1000 acres here and there and see what that does. What is reasonable, really?

  83. Question Everything
    October 1, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Un-named, ever been to Vermont? You can drive 30 miles without a freeway exit, the State Capitol is about the size of Arcata, there are unpaved roads that go places and a rural culture that makes Humboldt look like the city. People who think this is the only great place on Earth need to travel more.

    I like this place for the mild climate (I hate heat and humidity) but I fear for it’s future. It is much more like hillbilly Apalachia than beaucholic places like rural rural New Engand, rural New York or even rural New Jersey. All of which are beautifu in their own right.

  84. Toohey
    October 1, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    At this point this blog is not much more than a trollosphere. Can we have a discussion that is based on facts and not personal insults and hyperbola? Bolithio says no old growth is to be cut so what about it? Is that true? If it is make your argument as to why the project should still be opposed. Hint: it is not because he’s a big dumbhead.

  85. the reasonable anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    Waste manager,

    I think you’re a bit confused about my position oin this. Read my comments again — I am *against* the Richardson Grove realignment project. I like the Grove just fine as is, and I don’t at all mind slowing down to go through it — in fact I think the speed limit should be lowered and some of those radar “your speed is…” signs installed.

    However, I just don’t buy the “through-traffic” argument (as presented in “low down’s” 7:15 comment), the idea that if the project goes forward then suddenly there would be all this new long-haul truck traffic going *through* Humboldt. As you point out yourself, there are lots of other bottlenecks or slow and/or narrow and/or curvy sections, on 299, and on 101 itself in NoHum and in Del Nortre. So RG realignment or not, due to our basic geographic position Humboldt is just not going to be a conduit for a great deal of through-trucking.

  86. High Finance
    October 1, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    And by “80 miles per hour” I meant that the north bound vehicle is going 40 and the south bound vehicle is going 40. Hence, they are approaching each other at 80 miles per hour.

  87. the reasonable anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    Toohey asks: “Bolithio says no old growth is to be cut so what about it? Is that true?”

    The RG realignment plans do NOT include cutting down any old growth trees. However, they WILL be cutting and otherwise disturbing some of the root of some of those old growth trees. In the past, some trees have flourished despite such treatment (including some close to the existing RG roadway and many on Avenue of the Giants), but others have been damaged or perished after road-building takes place adjacent to them. So, there would likely be *some* damage to *some* old-growth trees, but it’s not all that clear how *much* damage or to how *many* of the trees.

    So it basically comes down to folks on one side believing that the highway realignment is important and/or the risk to the old-growth trees is small, whereas folks lined up on the other side tend to see the realignment as unimportant and/or undesirable and the risk to the trees as unacceptably large.

  88. obligingly anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Whew. I thought it was about Rob Arkley.

  89. jill
    October 1, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    Richardson Grove is perfect as it is. Leave it alone. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” it ain’t broke.

  90. low down
    October 1, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    RA, to see the bigger picture you’d have to read CalTran’s overall plan for opening 101, 299, and 199 to STAA traffic. Of course, this is all so that trucks can travel JUST to Humboldt, then turn around and go back to where they came. Oh, and don’t forget DelNorte. Bursting economy there. A real destination point for STAA trucks.

    Truth is, RA, this is the “super size me” mentality, applied to our transportation network. Very 1950’s. Bigger is always better. The Fact that we’ve hit the wall economically has not sunk in yet, and CalTran’s vision is retro.

    Just a micro example of the macro mess our country is in.

  91. the reasonable anonymous
    October 1, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    Well I agree about the “super size me” mentality of our society in general, and of course CalTrans is a prime example.

    But let’s assume that they DO open up all of 101, 299 and 199 to STAA traffic — that still doesn’t explain how we get a lot of through-traffic when we’re not really in the middle of any major destinations. For example, if you’re hauling a trailer from Portland to San Francisco (or from Los Angeles to Seattle or whatever), it would cost you a lot of extra time and gasb to detour through the North Coast on 101 as opposed to just taking I-5.

  92. Bolithio
    October 2, 2010 at 7:43 am

    There is allot more residual old growth scattered around than allot of people think TRA. To their credit, earth first was very aware of this. The reason they are still near places so close to the mill boil down to two things: either they new they had substantial rot to not log them back then or they were impossible to get with the technology they had. Helicopters allowed access to many OG trees which had ‘sound’ wood.

    By 04-05′ I think the policy had shifted enough to where true residual old growth would be left – but earth first had not yet realized that this was the policy. Either that or the actual tree sitters were not that well informed. Also, Im sure there was just general distrust with a so-called policy of PALCO, so we can give them the benefit of the doubt there too. Good thing all of that is behind us!

  93. Bolithio
    October 2, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Regarding road impacted trees.

    In earlier discussions Jeff Muskrat was going on and on about all the dead trees along the 101. I have put a concerted effort to examine the old growth trees as I travel southern county, which I do regularly. There are snag top redwoods all through this country. There are even concentrations close to the highway. Still, I can clearly see that this phenomena is occurring deep within the stands of old growth too. Infact, I believe I am seeing it more distributed than concentrated on the road. If you were try to keep a mental +/- tally while driving or riding a bike along the 101 or the AVE you will really quick find healthy tops way, way ahead before you loose count all together.

    There are at least two spots on the 101 where there are massive cuts and associated fills where there are concentrations of snag tops. Without some form of historic areal photo assessment, it is logical to deduce that their could have been impacts from these huge road cuts. Surface and likely ground water would have surly been altered, not to mention the make up the soil.

    That said from what I can tell, the RG project is straitening the road on a flat grade which will result in minimal cut/fill. There does not appear to be any drainage/water effects resulting from the project that would de-water a redwood clump or tree.

    We have all seen redwood trees with roads cutting right through their roots and they live on unharmed. For eurekans, there is a huge 2nd growth tree on the west side of S street near Buhne. That tree is healthy as can be. There are literally hundreds (thousands?) of examples along the 101 and AVE where the road is right on these trees and yet they appear fine.

    Go drive it and see for your self. I recommend the drive into Rockefeller Grove (My second favorite OG grove).

  94. treesnstuff
    October 2, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    It never ceases to amaze me that people are so eager to throw their lot in with the authorities in any situation. People will side with CalTrans, Homeland Security, the police, the DEA, etc. over their neighbors and community. People have been trained and social engineered to be little more than Pavlovian dogs ready to lap up whatever drivel is thrown to them by their masters. I see this knee-jerk reaction all the time. People ridicule their community for opposing the authorities regardless of the situation, because we have been trained to do so. In the case of Richardson Grove it’s just sad. People comment that because CalTrans won’t be cutting down old growth redwoods (they will be cutting into the old growth trees’ roots and do not know how it will affect the trees) that everything is cool. Since when are only old growth redwood trees worthy of being protected or saved from murder? People of the North Coast, do you realize you are being played with by CalTrans, the State and a very small handful of powerful business interests on the North Coast? Resist the urge to look to your established authority figures to tell you what to think.

    And also, for all the people who keep saying the lawsuit will fail, I highly doubt any of you know much about NEPA. In my opinion the case is actually pretty solid. There’s a good chance CalTrans could lose on the NEPA claim or on the Wild and Scenic Rivers claim. Additionally, there are many restrictions related to road building in state parks which may have been violated with the CalTrans plan.

  95. olmanriver
    October 2, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Bolithio- Where is your favorite OG grove?

  96. 69er
    October 2, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Go drive State Route 36 to Bridgeville if you want to get a good feel for trees vs road and vehicles. The big rigs and some of the smaller ones have been scraping the bark off them for years and they survive. Some of these trees are even raising the asphalt with their roots. They are a hearty bunch for sure.

  97. pete
    October 2, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Probably in a lumber yard or patio deck.

  98. pete
    October 2, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    my 10:24 comment was in answer to olemanriver about Bolithio.

  99. Anonymous #147
    October 3, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Right. Don’t address anything Bolithio wrote that might be of interest. Just accuse him of being yet another asshole who’d like to see all the old growth cut down for profit.

    Dave Kirby’s right on this one: this is all horseshit. Virtually no one here wants to discuss why a place that already has a highway gouging it, and side roads and campgrounds and parking lots, and campers and day users walking all over the roots, seems to be doing OK. It’s all about how a project that encompasses a tenth of a mile of road is going to completely destroy an entire state park, if the rhetoric is to be believed, which I for one don’t.

    This stunt will cost EPIC any chance it ever had of reaching across the aisle to anyone outside of its hardcore base. But then again, that’s not what the hardcore base really wants, is it? Do you know what else it’ll cost? The next time EPIC cries foul over something that actually matters, instead of a meaningless piece of roadwork, no one who matters is going to listen. And that’s just plain tragic, because EPIC has done a hell of a lot of good work over the years.

  100. Bolithio
    October 3, 2010 at 8:28 am


  101. olmanriver
    October 3, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Thanks Bolithio.
    There is ample evidence that old growth can survive next to roads for what, the 60-70 years that pavement has run through them. On the Ave of the Giants, and highway 36, as others have stated, the roots are pushing the pavement up in many places. Surely these shallow roots were ones that were completely chopped to put the road bed in.
    The issue seems to be whether, even with state of the art root spading, messing with lateral roots will harm the OG tree in the longer course of its life.
    All we have is a handful of decades from which to base observations, and the assurances of an EIR that seems to have weaknesses. I can understand the emotions involved in not wanting to take a chance with the lives of the remaining giants.
    And I see a lot of the save the whales, save the planet, save the slow lifestyle, keep the big boxes out, semper virens last stand, OMG Santa Rosa is moving north fears all wrapped up in this issue.
    Others say that we have a kinder, gentler CalTrans than the Caltrans that raped the forest on its way north when they expanded 101 to four lanes decades ago. Public trust of government institutions is at an all time low, for good reason.
    As important as our opinions are here (wink), it is up to the courts now.

    ps. my favorite walk is from the fire access road on the left just after crossing the Bull Creek bridge in Rockefeller forest.

  102. Un-Named
    October 3, 2010 at 10:37 am

    You’re right, Question Everything, there are tons of places nicer than Humboldt. We don’t live there, and most of us can’t afford to go there, let alone live there. And why should we, when look at what we’ve got.

    The way to make Humboldt County more like all those famous pleasurable places isn’t to compromise our ANCIENT Redwoods AT ALL. The way to make Humboldt more like everybody’s vision of paradise isn’t to build 20, 50 and 100+ acre commercialized residential zones all at once, all over the palce, with bigger roads always on tap. It’s a no brainer.

    Humboldt doesn’t need to grow based on a profit motive. It simply doesn’t have to happen. Think about all those places “nicer” than here. Remember the Sim City games? Let’s gear our politics toward making Humboldt more comfortable instead. There’s no going wrong with that.

    In the long run, it will ONLY make this place more prestigious and appreciated if we leave the freeways as they are and stick to growing from the inside out as needed. The rest of the state can choke on it’s own sprawl…I don’t live there for a reason. I’d like to stay here. It’s project supporters who need to pull their heads out of their asses, not the other way around. Humboldt COunty won’t shrivel up and die without this project…not by a longshot. It’s not even a local initiative for fug’s sake. Nobody from this county put it on the table. Please, bolithio and high finance, jump on the nationalist train somewhere else.

  103. Un-Named
    October 3, 2010 at 10:44 am

    …it’s fucking ridiculous, really. If Richardson Grove were full of ancient Greek or Egyptian ruins instead…totally lifeless, inanimate stonework…it would be a different story. You are living defintions of people who can’t see the ancient forest through the trees by the freeway.

  104. Un-Named
    October 3, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Question Everything…I will do my best to explain why you can’t compare the population density of vermont to one relative in humboldt.

    If you imagined the relative areas of vermont’s density located in humboldt county, how big of a radius would have to explode around vermont to make it relative to humboldt? What suddenly falls within the overall diameter is the most gigantor population in the nation, been growing for over 200 years now…literally since day 1. Surrounding the relative areas of density within humboldt, you have…well…take a look. And humboldt is of relative age as well, meaning obviously that technology has made the capability for growth and development within desolate and isolated areas exponentially faster.

  105. olmanriver
    October 3, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    After following a tractor/double flat bed trailer through going the grove around 11:30 this AM, I am back on my address the safety issue Now soapbox. The truck cab had the name of a ranch located in Humboldt County. Twice the rear tires went six inches into the opposing lane, eight other times those tires went well onto the double yellow line…rarely did he slow down from the posted 40mph. This day no bicyclists or Winnebagos or opposing trucks posed a danger. Slowing down the traffic going through may not keep the larger trucks that are going through already in their proper lanes, but it sure will allow for more reaction time to the narrowest parts.
    If human safety concerns are truly a component of the CalTrans plans for the grove, show some concern now. This is one of the narrowest sections of 101, why aren’t there warning signs at both ends of the grove, and a slower, not faster, speed limit.

    End of spiel.

  106. Un-Named
    October 3, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    It’s never rained darkness on these lands because of how Richardson Grove stands…as it is. Don’t try to BS people that it’s a safety issue.

  107. olmanriver
    October 3, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    I am saying that there is a safety issue there, perhaps I should not have referred to any part or component of Caltrans plans demonstrating concern for public safety.

  108. woodsworker
    October 4, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Everybody has an opinion, unfortunately they are, more often than not, uninformed opinions.
    Fred M: When was the last time you saw logging companies leave stumps that then generated new growth?
    Oldphart: It is not a federal highway, it is a state highway. Do some research on how highways are numbered, etc.
    Fact is that STAA trucks are already coming in through RG illegally every day. In the last decade there has been not one accident involving a big truck in that one mile stretch of highway that CalTrans has earmarked for widening. (Yes, WIDENING)
    Set a speed limit of 20-25 mph and put up cameras to get pics of speeders who will then pay BIG fines and there will be no problem there.I think it’s safe to say that the cameras would not cost near the 11 mill the project is gonna cost.

  109. woodsworker
    October 4, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Anonymous 147: It is not a tenth of a mile, the project is a mile of road.
    Like I said–uninformed opinions…….

  110. Anonymous #147
    October 4, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Actually, Woodsworker, not uniformed in the least. Yes, it’s a mile of road total, but the bulk of the project, the cutting of the trees and embankment plus adding a lane/reducing a lane/softening a curve, is going to be done in a stretch that’s a tenth of a mile long. Been there, looked at the trees that are slated to be cut, took pictures, spent the day in the park. But thanks for opinionating anyway.

    P.S.: If you understand it so well, why do you think a lower speed limit will make a difference? I won’t argue that the traffic needs to move more slowly through the grove and the big rigs should definitely be ticketed when they don’t, but speed doesn’t make a difference as far as the narrow curvature of the road in that spot is concerned.

    P.S. 2: It is not a state highway. It’s a U.S. HIGHWAY. I’ve driven it all the way from SoCal to Washington, where it ends.

    P.S. 3: It’s widening in the strictest sense of the term, but the way you all are using the word, you’re conjuring images of four-lane freeways in the minds of all those poor uninformed folks in Albany and yonder. The fearmongering language is just like the shit that the Republican’ts have been shoving down our throats ever since Obama took office, and it’s not doing EPIC, its supporters, or the local environmental movement any favors.

  111. olmanriver
    October 4, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Wouldn’t it be nice to see an overhead of the actual section being affected posted online sometime. Feelin’ lazy, maybe someone could link to a page in the EIR report, or an environmental site where an overhead view might be found. That would go a long way towards clarifying the scale of the project.

  112. Toohey
    October 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Ask and you shall receive.


    Look at Appendix L and the photo simulations.
    It is somewhat difficult to interpret the layouts but the closer the cut or fill line is to the pavement the less ground disturbance, I believe.

  113. Bolithio
    October 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    OMG they are going to murder a 24″ tanoak!!!!!

  114. narration
    October 5, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    Hmm. Widen the road, so that wider STAA trucks can use it?

    Then you have HiFi’s collision potential just the same as before, don’t you?

    It seems the speed limit 25 and cameras alternative while continuing no STAA trucks would be very sensible.

    Is there a reason to invite larger trucks with in-a-hurry non-local drivers? Would it not be this way?

  115. Brattle
    October 5, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Jerry Partain was really right that if we just widen 101, we will have more tourists and businesses. Unfortunately, all the tourists will be people on their way to Oregon who missed the turnoff for I-5; and the only businesses left will be the same chains as in every suburbia everywhere, paying minimum wage to the serfs willing to live here.

  116. treesnstuff
    October 5, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    Three things I don’t get…

    One, someone links to the EIR and then acts like it’s the gospel. Um, I think the inadequacy of the EIR is what the lawsuit is all about.

    Two, the guy who thinks it’s funny to cut down a 24″ tan oak. What’s the deal? Why do people scoff at trees being murdered in favor of stinky, polluting trucks that are going to haul, what, plastic crap to unload at Target?

    Which brings me to three. If you are not a politician on the take or a local business tycoon, why in the freakin’ world would you support this plan? What do everyday people in Humboldt County have to gain? Cheaper plastic crap at big box retailers? Better shipping rates for the Cypress Grove cheese lady? Did everyone move to Humboldt to shop at Target and support the cheese lady? I mean, I love Cypress Grove cheeses, they’re amazingly good, but really, I like trees (yes, even 24″ tan oaks) a lot more.

  117. anonymous
    October 6, 2010 at 12:49 am

    Jesus F. Christ, it’s not all about Cypress Grove. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of local businesses who support the plan because of shipping costs. Stop making Cypress Grove out to be the boogieman, and stop thinking it’s about the big boxes. They’re the ones who can afford the offloading.

  118. Bolithio
    October 6, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Why do people scoff at trees being murdered in favor of stinky, polluting trucks that are going to haul, what, plastic crap to unload at Target?

    See Treesnstuff, you got it all wrong. We are not scoffing at the murder of trees. We are scoffing at EPIC using this project as some BS frontline battle against saving Old Growth redwood, when in reality the biggest tree being removed is a 24″ tanoak.

  119. Toohey
    October 6, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Don’t bother. The project opposition has from the beginning been more about emotion that thought. Most commenter’s here have not read a single page of any project document. They let the propaganda ministers at EPIC do their thinking for them. After all its never about the issue, it’s about being on the right side of it with the people that are cool.

  120. treesnstuff
    October 7, 2010 at 7:41 am

    you guys are all right, nevermind. what was i thinking?

  121. Un-Named
    October 7, 2010 at 8:40 am

    see, Bolithio, you say concern for our way of life is true to your heart, but here you are…again…in the face of your own neighbors who oppose a project that you insist is no big deal…telling them to get over it because it’s no big deal. Yet you continuously nitpick opposition over the specifics of a couple of trees…crying the whole time that people who want the grove left untouched need to get their story straight or all credibility is shot. You’re like a polished turd, shining bright in the sun.

    I don’t expect that comment won’t win me powers of persuasion with you, but realize you and others are going out of your way to support the project basically out of spite. Yes, you’re supporting the project, even though arguably half the people dont, and even though it ain’t gonna make a lick of difference in the lives of you and yours.

    Tell us, really…have you and high finance thought about moving somewhere more urban, where the artieries of progress are swollen at every intersection, but not clogged with the cholesterol of bumper to bumper traffic…yet.

    Jump on that nationalism bandwagon! STAA trucks ARE the bandwagons of nationalism! U$A! U$A! U$A!

  122. Bolithio
    October 7, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    You’re like a polished turd, shining bright in the sun.

    LOL thanks man, that really just made my day! Really, you just epitomized your and EPICs rational thought process. LOL

  123. Reinventing The Wheel
    October 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Not enough time has passed to judge how the current road has impacted the ancient trees.

    Are they still growing at the same rate, did their root system fully recover, will they be more inclined to tumble when the perfect storm arrives?

    Oh, that’s right…all that matters is my lifetime.

    What a waist of public money that should be spent where the most fatalities are (Broadway, Eureka!). What about all those other delays…two lane roads, cities, wildlife, poor drivers…whaa whaa whaa…

  124. Joe
    October 7, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Your making it seem as though you need to be a sunny paradise to have an economically prosperous city. Portland? Seattle? Detroit? New York? The list goes on…

  125. Joe
    October 7, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    I meant to respond to “Question Everything”:

    Is there any evidence Humbold County will be degraded? This arguement that we are one road widening from becoming LA is a straw man. First, LA is warm all year; second, LA has places to shop that sell more than “glassware” and third, it doesn’t rain 200 days a year. While we who live here can cope with the wet and grey, most people can’t.

    At the rate of growth we experienced over th last 50 years our population will double in another 50 years giving us the same pupulation density as Vermont. Hardy LA.

  126. Un-Named
    October 8, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Reinventing the wheel @ 2:55…what’s worse is plenty of time HAS passed to see how roads have hurt the trees…especially keeping in mind the accelerated rate of commercial deforesting they’ve brought. Roads and everything they represent have rained apocalyptic devastation on our open spaces…here and everywhere. Everything on the state and national agenda is more of the same. It’s accelerating, not slowing down…that’s not the perspective caltrans or the state want us to have. That’s a fact that freeway supporters like bolithio can try to dodge all they want for their short-term industrial ideals. Economics is temporary. Those forests aren’t coming back…they need way more than a man’s lifetime to heal.

  127. Bolithio
    October 8, 2010 at 7:36 am

    Roads and everything they represent have rained apocalyptic devastation on our open spaces…here and everywhere.

    Right. So Un-nammed, instead of accusing me of being a “freeway supporter” and demand that I move to LA or some shit, I suggest you move to into the deep wilderness where there are no roads – and put your extensive knowledge of forests to the test.

  128. Un-Named
    October 8, 2010 at 7:45 am

    I’m not trying to change your living conditions at all, Bolithio…whereas you’re supporting another faceless compromise of everybodys’. While claiming to be on the fence about the issue, too. So…if the Richardson Grove “improvement” project is no big deal as you keep insisting, why don’t you shut up about it instead of badmouthing your neighbors everytime they speak up?

  129. to TooHey
    October 8, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Sorry you are not cool.

  130. RJ
    October 8, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    I am always amazed at the ignorance and stupidity of some residents of this county. They don’t seem to be able to grasp that the widening of this road will compromise tourism and the environment. These stupid and selfish people do not deserve to live in a unique place such as this. They should move to a large city or suburb,
    where they can have all the roads and traffic they could ever wish for. No state parks or trees to slow down there pace to nowhere.

  131. pluto
    October 8, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Cutting down any trees in Richardson Grove: What a dumb-ass idea.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s