Judge Halts Caltrans Proposed Richardson Grove Project—Again (Includes Summary of the Judge’s Objections)

Richardson Grove

Richardson Grove [Stock photo from Caltrans]

Late Friday, conservation groups’ attempts to stop a Caltrans’ project in Richardson* Grove got a boost when Judge William Alsup from the U.S. District Court in San Francisco halted the project citing the poor quality of Caltrans’ administrative record and his concern for the health of the old growth redwoods along the roadway. (Though, the Judge also scolded the conservation groups for having “larded the litigation record with sworn statements that have proved unreliable.”)

By May 23, the Judge wants both Caltrans and the conservation groups to file supplemental briefings on whether an Environmental Impact Statement must be completed or if Caltrans will be “permitted to try again with an EA/FONSI”–a less extensive assessment.

The Richardson Grove project was developed to allow STAA trucks (longer, not heavier semi trucks)–which are overall considered the standard size–to traverse Hwy 101 through the area. Currently, they are not allowed through the Grove and must either take a detour (often up I-5 and over 299) or offload and transfer to a shorter semi that may legally travel through the area. Businesses argue this increases the cost of products in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties.

The controversial project to reshape Hwy 101 through the Grove which began in 2006 has repeatedly run into opposition both from environmental groups and subsequently from the Courts.

The Judge, in his order, specifically had concerns about the effect of the project on the health of several old growth trees situated near the proposed changes to the roadway. He stated, “While none of these ancients will be cut down outright under this proposal, the question remains whether the agency has adequately ruled out any significant risks to the lives of these giants due to work proposed in and about their root zones.”

The Judge noted three trees might have more than half their root systems under the roadway and thus might be at loss for oxygen. He stated, “Accepting as true that the trees have enjoyed health so far despite some pavement and accepting as true that the amount of new pavement seems small, this still begs the question of whether pushing the needle further into the red zone will be a push too far.”

The Judge also was concerned that soil disturbance in the root zone might injure the trees. He noted that Caltrans had pointed to a study that an old growth redwood survived having a large portion of its roots removed. The Judge however pointed out that though “an old-growth redwood can remarkably survive without 90% of its roots or that it is generally resistant to decay, therefore, has no bearing on whether the scope of work of this project, without minimization measures, will afflict the old-growth trees with root disease.”

Next, he worried that the experience of the public using the Grove might be affected by having “STAA heavies rumble through the park — in addition to existing traffic?”** The noise he believed would be worse than that going through there now.

He noted, “If we were today considering building a major highway through a grove of ancient redwoods, almost certainly the public would demand that the grove be spared and that the highway bypass the park.”

Another concern the Judge expressed was damage resulting from the STAA trucks with their “heavier and larger tractor unit” colliding with the old growth redwoods. He ruled, “[T]he damage to the tree may be greater than [from] the currently permitted truck on account of the differences in the tractor unit.”**

In response, a statement from Caltrans District 1 argued, “A third-party certified arborist found project activities will not substantially affect the continued vigorous health of old growth redwood trees. Still, Caltrans plans to take extra measures to protect old growth redwood trees and their roots.”

Caltrans’ statement went on to argue,

Work in the structural root zone of old growth trees will be done by hand and with an air spade, further protecting large redwood tree roots that are two inches in diameter and greater. The current version of our project at Richardson Grove will be completed in 180 total working days with typically only five-minute delays for motorists, making minor adjustments to a few select curves. More than 99 percent of the state park was planned to remain untouched and no old growth trees will be removed.”

A press release from The Center for Biological Diversity quoted co-founder Peter Galvin, co-founder and director of programs at the Center for Biological Diversity as saying, “We’re elated that the court rejected Caltrans’ misguided and deeply destructive plan…The ancient trees and wildlife of Richardson Grove are too important to pave over.”

The Center’s full press release is added below:

Conservation groups and Humboldt County residents have won a federal court victory halting Caltrans’ controversial Richardson Grove highway-widening project. The project would needlessly harm ancient redwood trees in California’s iconic Richardson Grove State Park along Highway 101 in Humboldt County. The U.S. District Court in San Francisco struck down the Caltrans plan in a 26-page order issued late Friday afternoon.

“We’re elated that the court rejected Caltrans’ misguided and deeply destructive plan,” said Peter Galvin, co-founder and director of programs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The ancient trees and wildlife of Richardson Grove are too important to pave over.”

“For too long, Caltrans has pushed this unpopular project at the expense of the taxpayers and the environment,” said Tom Wheeler, executive director of EPIC. “EPIC hopes that Caltrans focuses on road projects that are actually a priority, like Last Chance Grade.”

The highway-widening project could damage the roots of more than 100 of Richardson Grove’s ancient redwoods, including trees up to 3,000 years old, 18 feet in diameter and 300 feet tall. Caltrans has pursued this project solely to incrementally improve passage for heavy, oversized commercial trucks, with trailers up to 53 feet long.

In an order setting aside Caltrans’ inadequate environmental review and approval for the project, Judge William Alsup found that the agency failed to address four main issues: the roots of several ancient redwoods would risk suffocation due to increased paving in their root zones; construction within their structural root zones has the potential to impact or topple trees; heavy oversized trucks are more likely to collide with trees in the grove and the damage to redwoods could be more severe; and noise impacts from more and larger trucks rumbling through the park will be much worse than Caltrans is admitting and would diminish public enjoyment of the grove.

Judge Alsup stated that “all of these old-growth redwoods have lived many times longer than our nation has existed,” and “if we were today considering building a major highway through a grove of ancient redwoods, almost certainly the public would demand that the grove be spared and that the highway bypass the park.”

The court will next take arguments on whether Caltrans must prepare a new environmental assessment or provide a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement. Judge Alsup noted that studies cited by Caltrans were not provided to the public and that mastering Caltrans’ incomplete and confusing administrative record has been “awful” and “resembled decoding hieroglyphics.”

Background
Richardson Grove State Park, where tourists often first encounter large redwoods when heading north on Highway 101, is home to one of the last protected stands of accessible old-growth redwood trees in the world. The park has essential habitat for threatened and endangered species such as the northern spotted owl, and its creeks support runs of imperiled salmon and steelhead trout.

Caltrans first proposed the project in 2007, claiming the widening is needed to accommodate large-truck travel. But Highway 101 through Richardson Grove is already designated for larger trucks and does not have significant safety problems. The agency cannot demonstrate that the project is necessary for safety or would benefit the local economy.

Litigation against the Richardson Grove project has been successful in both state and federal court. This is the third federal lawsuit challenging Caltrans’ violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, due to inadequate evaluation of the environmental impacts of cutting into or paving over tree roots.

A state court ruled in May 2018 against a Caltrans motion to dismiss the state lawsuit. The 2010 federal lawsuit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Protection Information Center, Friends of Del Norte, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, and longtime local residents Bess Bair, Trisha Lee Lotus, Jeffrey Hedin and David Spreen.

In 2012 the federal court issued a temporary injunction stopping the project, citing numerous errors in Caltrans’ mapping and measurement of affected old-growth redwoods and use of faulty data. Previous legal challenges blocked construction and forced Caltrans to rescind all project approvals in 2014. The agency reapproved the project in 2017, claiming it had made significant changes. However, Caltrans still proposed to cut into tree roots, threatening the stability and viability of old-growth redwoods.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs in this suit are Stuart Gross of Gross & Klein LLP; Sharon Duggan, a staff attorney with EPIC and a long-time expert on environmental law; Philip Gregory of Gregory Law Group; and Camilo Artiga-Purcell of Artiga-Purcell Law Office.

*Note: Though the current legal name is Richardson Grove, locals distinctly pronounce the “s” in Richardson’s Grove as it was spelled for years.

** Note 2: STAA semi trucks and the trucks currently going through the Grove have the same weight limit though the STAA trucks have their weight distributed over a longer area.

***Note 3: This author’s husband, father, and grandfather all work/ed for Caltrans.

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

64 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Diane
Guest
Diane
4 years ago

Why not build a bypass?

Central HumCo
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

“No old growth would be cut in Caltrans’ plan. ”

~ i still have some condos on Jupiter for sale.

Mr. Bear
Guest
Mr. Bear
4 years ago
Reply to  Central HumCo

You can easily go online and look at the entire plan including the drawings that show the location of every tree or you can just spout ignorant comments. Your choice

Central HumCo
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Mr. Bear

~thank you, Mr. Bear. I’ll go study Caltrans scripts.

Mr. Bear
Guest
Mr. Bear
4 years ago
Reply to  Central HumCo

That’s what I did. Very educational

hmm
Guest
hmm
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Is this a valid option?

“Jumping the river just north of the Cooks Valley Road (SR271) intersection and going upslope above the Richardson Grove Oak Flat Campground. The alignment would require a viaduct no different than the formerly named Eagle Point Viaduct just south of Meyers Flat (now named the Hod Benedick Bridge)
The by-pass would tie in to the existing highway right at the southerly intersection of Benbow Drive with US101.”

hmm
Guest
hmm
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

They may not be cut but that doesn’t not mean they wont be killed. Also there is no need to widen the road or create a bypass, that I’m aware of.

Jill
Guest
Jill
4 years ago
Reply to  Diane

For 3 trees? Absolutely not!

Guest
Guest
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Diane

If this doesn’t display the idiocy of the legal system… A judge is ruling on whether there is enough information to make a ruling. It’s a big game to the legal profession. Even when it is clear what the final decision will be, people have to dance to the court’s tune to get there and that threat, not the result, is a potent weapon. In essence it’s making doing anything too expensive to pursue and delaying until the whole project fails. The only group that can stand up to that tactic is a government entity. Any one without bottomless pockets is doomed.

Central HumCo
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Guest

“If this doesn’t display the idiocy of the legal system… A judge is ruling on whether there is enough information to make a ruling.”

~love it!

Lone ranger
Guest
Lone ranger
4 years ago

Dang conservatives, always stopping something, all trump’s fault, Obama would have had this widening done already.

Anotherop
Guest
Anotherop
4 years ago
Reply to  Lone ranger

This is about Caltrans. Not trump. Why so defensive? Calm down.

Central HumCo
Guest
4 years ago

Don’t some in here ever get sick and tired of reading about something we have no control over? Such as;
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Jesus God! Get over it.

“MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS”.

“Nothing is accidental here. The whole physical existence is happening between cause and consequence.”

Hegelian dialect
make problem
fix problem
charge

Ernie Branscomb
Guest
4 years ago

Although I have heard it pronounced both “Richardson Grove” and “Richardson’s Grove”, I have never seen anyone be confused about the location or significance of the area.

I believe that a truck path through the grove could be constructed without damaging any old growth trees. However, I trust no one involved. Not the Hollywood sponsored “environmentalists”, Not the Caltrans “Experts”, not the judges mostly concerned with Legal matters. The situation has become so contentious that I don’t think a sound decision can be made.

At this point I strongly advocate placing a new freeway section, east of the grove, across the river as originally planned back in the 1960’s. The freeway will be built in a mudbank, removing many trees and brush at great expense. However, it can be done, and the problems can be mitigated.

It is time that the North Coast opens itself up to environmentally friendly business and tourism. It does no good to try to knock down progress.

(Full discloser: I am a friend of Kym Kemp, and a fellow generational native of the Eel River. I also have considerable experience with redwoods)

Mr. Bear
Guest
Mr. Bear
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Absolutely

Old Mendo Fart
Guest
Old Mendo Fart
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Kym,

I think in this case the precautionary principle is in order here. It’s obvious that Caltrans has been unable to prove unequivocally that the safety of the trees would not be compromised in any way. Since they cannot do that, the project should not go forward. Also, since the sole reason for the project is to satisfy big box lobbyists by making the road accessible by STAA trucks, I think it’s fair that we question the whole premise behind the project.

I tend to agree with your friend. Put in a bypass. Given that it can be done with mitigation of impacts, it seems a way better solution long term. You could be right about the environmental damage, but that hasn’t been truly studied, and it’s certainly not Caltrans’ motive to reduce environmental damage if their past behavior is any indicator. I think it may be a bit flawed to compare “net” environmental damage anyway. With only 5% of old growth redwoods remaining, the grove should be treated as the national treasure it is.

Ben Round
Guest
Ben Round
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

ANOTHER OPTION: To regulate the current road for the STAA trucks to come though. That would involve that the traffic flow through the grove be halted, for 20-30 minutes at a time, for the larger trucks to get through. Possibly, do this during certain hours, and/or trucks pass by reservation, and/or setting it up so groups of trucks could go through together. Possibly the trucks would have the priority every 2 hours for a half hour.
Also. Then set up parking areas for vehicles (it goes without saying there would need to be parking for big trucks to wait) outside the park where people could, in their minutes waiting, have access to information about Richardson Grove, about redwoods, the history of the area, etc.
I think we locals could live with that.

LuvTheGrove
Guest
LuvTheGrove
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben Round

Best solution by far. Do it nights? Alternate days for n/s? Stop wasting so much money on studies. Use what you have now with the limitations you have now. There are a lot of smart people out there than can make it happen!!

Ernie Branscomb
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Kym
Of course the Grove improvement would be the best solution. How has that worked so far? Every time an old idiot gives out a new one is born to stop it.
It has nothing to do with reality.

hmm
Guest
hmm
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

We cant assume that without study, and when considering environmental damage, any harm to the remaining old growth redwoods should be HEAVILY weighted.

In my 1911 I trust
Guest
In my 1911 I trust
4 years ago
Reply to  hmm

I figure since we already mismanaged the old growth redwood forests to a point that there is only 5% remaining, we need to live with the mistake that past humans have made and preserves the remaining forest at all cost. Its hard to live with past mistakes because they may inconvenience later generations. I fully disagree with anyone who says a bypass would create more environmental damage to the surrounding forest. It could in the short term, but young trees and underbrush grow back in a few decades, one old growth redwood takes 600 years at least, more than 6 of our lifetimes. The amount of time it took for an old growth to reach its size must be considered.

Central HumCo
Guest
4 years ago

~progress. Oh paleeeeze.

We live in times of man-made climate collapse and yet some of us believe CalTrans has any significant input at this point in time.

Every Saturday morning broadcast from Redding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNBfwAAC9vk Geoengineering watch May 4, 2019

Willie Caso-Mayhem
Guest
4 years ago

🕯🌳Sometimes it’s more interesting to read the comments than the article, no disrespect to you Kym.

Rod Gass
Guest
Rod Gass
4 years ago

When it comes down to harming the last of the ancient redwoods for human gains. It’s simple … leave the trees alone. Keep the trucks entirely out of the equation, there’s better transportation solutions available.

It’s a paved paradise
Put up a parking lot.

People don’t reside here nor visit here for the ease of shopping nor reasonable prices. Get real, the natural beauty we have been protecting is the greater good.

Willie Caso-Mayhem
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Rod Gass

🕯🌳This I agree with. 👍🏾

Guest
Guest
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Rod Gass

Since you can see in the photo the bark damage caused by vehicles hitting trees , maybe it is not as straight forward as it seems to you. Maybe a little straightening of the curves would be better.

hmm
Guest
hmm
4 years ago
Reply to  Rod Gass

I agree! We have no real need for either widening or a bypass.

Anotherop
Guest
Anotherop
4 years ago
Reply to  Rod Gass

Exactly. So many here dont appreciate that fact. Often called the most beautiful county in the entire nation. Lets try to keep it that way, O.K.?

Wouldn't it be nice
Guest
Wouldn't it be nice
4 years ago

Anyone who doubts the impact of excavation in the root zone of redwood trees need look no farther than the new Miranda Market, where an old growth tree now lies in the form of logs after dying when the market was built, disturbing the roots of this once mighty tree.

Central HumCo
Guest
4 years ago

I’ve gone to several of the Richardson Grove “hearings”. It’s hours of two Attorneys discussing everything but fact and law (land juris). They only haggle over Their Rules, of basically – how to fit fiction into fact. Oil and water routine.

Rod Gass
Guest
Rod Gass
4 years ago
Reply to  Central HumCo

Yes, I’ve been a witness to a couple of these hearings myself. And never is there a redwood tree, young or old, speaking in defense. Which proves the axiom for me … I’m going to protect them. I encourage everyone to help.

burblestein
Guest
burblestein
4 years ago

Having been a neutral observer of the Willits Bypass construction, I long ago concluded that CalTrans does whatever it wants, regardless of law. Don’t be too surprised if they pave through Richardson Grove anyhow, judge or no judge.

ED Denson
Guest
ED Denson
4 years ago
Reply to  burblestein

I’m with burblestein, the Willits by-pass does provide a useful lesson for us, and that is that CalTrans operates regardess of law. They really messed up some archeological sites.

Dave Kirby
Guest
Dave Kirby
4 years ago

I wish the judge would take the time to come up here and tour the Avenue of the Giants. A 30 mile stretch of old 101 with hundreds of old growth trees growing in many cases inches from the pavement. If the assertions made by the the so called “environmentalists” were true it would be Avenue of the Giant Stumps. This fight has never really been about trees. Its the no growth elite hiding behind a phony environmental cover.

hmm
Guest
hmm
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave Kirby

You are assuming that the negative effects of the pavement would not increase along with more pavement and more traffic. You are also assuming that we would be able to detect any current negative impacts, when inf act they make take hundreds of years to kill the trees.

Unless it can be proven that the trees ecosystem will not be harmed by root damage, increased pollution, collisions with larger trucks ect, the widening should not be allowed.

Dave Kirby
Guest
Dave Kirby
4 years ago
Reply to  hmm

Actually the proposed project includes removing old parking area pavement. Don’t have to prove anything… like I said,,take a ride up the Avenue. I assure you no air shovels were used in its construction. How do you account for the lack of any evidence of damage in the adjacent groves?

Biiaaatch
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave Kirby

Touche’

nines
Guest
4 years ago

Pardon my ignorance, here, but isn’t the real problem for locals the fact that Eureka isn’t really a port anymore? That we can’t keep prices down because it’s so hard to get goods and services into Humboldt and Del Norte and the Mendocino Coast? Wouldn’t it be smarter for all our businesses to be going after that shipping angle instead of ruining our tourist industry with accommodating trucks?

I’d like to remind everyone that it’s NOT just making things easier for Walmart and Home Depot. It’s also about making things easier for offshore drilling.

Wouldn’t everyone prefer we go the OTHER way with our number one biggest and best environmental and tourist attraction? Restore our quaint little resorts and motels and restaurants and little shopping areas, and minimize the corporate giant accommodation to smaller trucks and boats or even planes?

And, Kym, I love our CalTrans guys, and I think we should all remember it is NOT CalTrans who are stumping for these road “improvements”. It’s big money and their bean counters. Can’t we be the one paradise that won’t let itself be paved for parking lots?

sick of it
Guest
sick of it
4 years ago
Reply to  nines

they barge in gas and the cost is higher so barge in other products and raise the price accordingly, just like Renner does. Me I go out of county to buy most everything now.
I would prefer to deal local but on a fixed income it’s not possible, even with the absurd price of gas I still save a lot of cash.
To the problem at hand DO NOT CUT ANY TREES. Find a workable solution dammit.

THC
Guest
THC
4 years ago
Reply to  sick of it

Then why is renner generally $0.10 cheaper than any other gas station around. And that’s without an account, were you typically receive a bigger discount…

Thirdeye
Guest
Thirdeye
4 years ago
Reply to  nines

And how would the goods reach their destinations from the port? By truck traffic concentrated in Eureka. Not a good idea if you’re familiar with traffic on 101 in Eureka. The Marine Highway idea is officially dead and its groovy advocates never considered the concentrated truck traffic that would result. Bottom line, the port for coastwise shipping became obsolete after the rail line and especially after improvements to 101. The added cost of barging in petroleum demonstrates why.

Offshore drilling isn’t supported by trucks, it is supported by ships.

The economically depressed aspect of Humboldt undermines the tourist economy.

Dave Kirby
Guest
Dave Kirby
4 years ago

nines…thanks for backing my point. It never has been about “Save Richardson Grove” a typical melodramatic overstatement.

Ernie Branscomb
Guest
4 years ago

Kym
Of course the Grove improvement would be the best solution. How has that worked so far? Every time an old idiot gives out a new one is born to stop it.
It has nothing to do with reality.

Central HumCo
Guest
4 years ago

“Of course the Grove improvement would be the best solution.”

Ernie,

You are out-numbered in here. You maybe could go do your “progress” song-and-dance where more “buy” it?
You know, in your world of “reality”.

Bozo
Guest
Bozo
4 years ago

So…. how much did the lawyers recieve from public funds ????

Stuart Gross of Gross & Klein LLP, (San Francisco)

Stuart G. Gross is an experienced litigator at both the trial and appellate court levels. He has represented, as plaintiffs, defendants, and amici curiae, clients ranging from small businesses to individuals to seed investors to non-governmental organizations to startups to large municipalities to Indian tribes to commercial fishermen to local communities to Fortune 100 companies. He has successfully litigated matters in federal and state courts throughout the United States, as well as in forums including the highest court of Indonesia and the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”).

Sharon Duggan, a staff attorney with EPIC and a long-time expert on environmental law.

Philip Gregory of Gregory Law Group, (Woodside California)

Philip Gregory, Jr. is a Business Litigation attorney working in Woodside, California. Philip Gregory, Jr. assists clients with Antitrust Litigation, Environmental Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation issues. Philip Gregory, Jr. works as an attorney at Gregory Law Group.

Camilo Artiga-Purcell of Artiga-Purcell Law Office. (San Francisco)

Camilo Artiga-Purcell is a seasoned trial attorney with experience litigating commercial, securities, financial fraud, and intellectual property disputes. Mr. Artiga-Purcell has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal court, JAMS and ADRS mediation and arbitration.

SmallFry
Guest
SmallFry
4 years ago

I have alway thought widening the grove is a pointless pursuit. Either way you go after the grove is still single lane roads that trucks have to slow down for. Most of the road between Leggett and Gville are winding and cliffs and will never be widened. Then North, up the coast, it’s the same. Develop economy’s geared toward our roads, don’t develop roads that are geared for the economy.. Short box trucks actually create more jobs, and it’s only slightly less then big tankers. And They can still get thru.. what it takes them all what…an extra 15 minutes maybe to slow for the grove… sorry but that doesn’t excuse slatering century old redwoods…. They need to quite wasting time and money on the Richardson’s grove, Last Chance Grade is about to fall into the ocean some day.

Thirdeye
Guest
Thirdeye
4 years ago
Reply to  SmallFry

First, it’s not about “widening the grove” (sic) or increasing the speed of trucks on 101. It’s about changing a curve radius to accommodated STAA standard trucks, which are more efficient and less polluting than older short box trucks. The inefficiencies of shipping to and from Humboldt put a crimp in the ability to operate businesses that ship resources in and products out – the most recent example being Bien Padre. It also figured in the loss of the local recycling industry. It also hampers the ability of local businesses to compete with corporate giants that operate their own truck fleets.

Sheesh
Guest
4 years ago

F@*k the urban expansion into remote rural california.
We dont want the suburbanization of our community.
We reject your Walmart makes the world better philosophy.
Dont tread on me!

Sparklemahn
Guest
Sparklemahn
4 years ago
Reply to  Sheesh

Amen to that! Have never given those peabrain right wingers of Wal-Mart (“theet”) a dime and never will. Same for any Conservative entity: forget you!

tax payer
Guest
tax payer
4 years ago
Reply to  Sparklemahn

Liberals put Walmart as the No. 1 company on the Fortune 500 that is the worst for America. They also ranked it as first on a list of companies in the Fortune 500 they would like shut down. Walmart has long been pilloried by the left for what liberals see as unfair wages and for fighting against unions.

Conservatives have concerns about Walmart as well. But higher on their list of companies that they want shut down was Target at No. 4. Walmart ranked at a lowly 10th on the conservatives respondents shut down list. Walmart did rank high on companies that conservatives think are bad for America, but not above some of the big banks.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/06/fortune-500-conservatives-liberals-love-hate/

I hate lowlifes
Guest
I hate lowlifes
4 years ago

This judge needs to educate himself on trucks and California laws. He says that the STAA trucks will be heavier which is not true. Ca. has a gross weight limit and a per axle weight limit on all trucks. STAA trucks are no heavier than what is currently going through there. The only difference is STAA trucks are longer. I’m not sure what he bases his comments about excessive noise on either. If anything, there will be less trucks running through there as STAA trucks, with longer trailers, can haul more thereby requiring less trucks = less noise, less damage to roots, less chance for accident impacting trees. Which leads me to also wonder why he thinks that the accidents that do happen will result in more damage to the trees as the trucks that pull STAA legal trailers are the exact same trucks going through there now and at the same weights. 34k per set of duals not to exceed 80k gross. He appears to be very un-informed which Cal Trans can take some of the blame for that.

Central HumCo
Guest
4 years ago

~when i first looked at this -back at the beginning, it took me to NASA. So i’ve never been a fan. It’s even dumber. The extra truck length, to my understanding, is the sleeper part behind the front seats.

No matter how one wants to slice it – it sucked in the beginning, it sucks all the way thru, it will end as ‘sucking’ (whether it happens or not), it’s cost prohibitive.

Billy Casomorphin
Guest
Billy Casomorphin
4 years ago

Leave my trees alone. Make the rigs go over 299. Call it “The 299 Bypass”. We already spent a huge amount on straightening and widening 299… Redding is closer to Bako up the 5 anyway. We also need to get some rigs off 20. This isn’t rocket science…

Mariahgirl
Guest
4 years ago

You and others that state truckers should use 299 obviously have no idea what it is like to travel 299. Cal trans had to put in bike lanes or at least enough room for them and they took out most of the passing lanes so the rest of us have to follow them and if they don’t know the road they either ride their brakes or they are doing 25-40 and they don’t pull over no matter how many cars are behind them. There are 2 places that are 1 lane controlled traffic between Willow Creek and Weaverville and they just worked on the sinking portion by the Blue Lake scales which is like driving on a washboard . Most of the widening that was done was the buckhorn and the others that they worked on that continue to slide. So,no, we don’t need to get trucks off of 101 and 20 and make them use 299. 299 usually has at least 1-2 complete closures each year and because of the fires there were a lot more in the last few years.

Charlie Brown
Guest
Charlie Brown
4 years ago

Solution A)
Slow down all vehicles to 20 mph for the two miles it takes to get through the zone. Place automatic speed cameras in multible points. And make the fine start at $500 per offence.
Solution B)
Take the 3 or four trees and be done with this shit. They all ready have spent enough money in court to have this done and paid for.
Solution C)
Bring all parties involved and have them spend an entire day going back and forth through the zone with traffic as it is. I bet something of a compromise would take place in about a year.
Solution D)
Get a supreme court judge that lives up here to rule on this and many other issues. One who has a stake in how life work on the north coast. San Fransico and L.A. all ready have too much to say in our lives.
Solution E)
Set a charge to start the big one and let everything south of Hwy 20 fall into the damn ocean.

OrleansNative
Guest
OrleansNative
4 years ago

My immediate thought was to build and bypass around the OG redwood similar to what was erected for Redwood NP with the Prairie Creek bypass. But realize that the terrain is squirrelly, often unstable, and is mostly forested where a bypass could be located.

I get the transportation problems of the north coast; no railroad, limited port, high costs. etc. But also at this point in time policy regards OG redwood ecosystems should be more protection (such as removing 101 from within Richardson Grove park) rather than continued nibbling at the ecosystems and remaining primeval trees.

Read the thread and the most posts are thoughtful.

So I have an expensive idea. Why not build a two deck 101 on current route? The lower deck would be open-sided so drivers could see into the forest. The upper deck would have views for drivers. I would say the top deck would be one-way north and the lower deck one-way south. Curve radius would be larger having what is now two lanes into one lane in areas with most and tightest curves. Rails and walls would keep vehicles from hitting trees in out-of-control crashes. In sensitive areas existing OG could get more of a buffer rather additional widening into their living zoom. The levels would be two-way except one-way as described so through travel will be faster.

Lots of local jobs to make a sensitive and artful construction. The structure could be such that some tourists find it interesting and unusual. Maybe the cement and steel could be a vast canvass for murals?

Antichrist
Guest
Antichrist
4 years ago
Reply to  OrleansNative

better yet in order to protect all groves remove all trails all roads put a 10 mile buffer around them where no one is allowed to enter so that there will be zero impact.
i jest but not so much. people want to control how the groves are used and demand their way is best. however if you way impacts my way and wr cant figure it out then neither side should get the use of said anything. trees are trees are trees . they grow some are old some arent but i dont see anyone pitching a fit to keep the oldest human alive ? or how about theboldest blade of grass ? fact is the redwoods are a failure . they were supposed to get wipped out during the ice age like the rest of them. attempting to control others for your personal gains is very much bs and makes folks take your whole point of view and throw it out the window.

Antichrist
Guest
Antichrist
4 years ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

they are a failure of natural causes to destory them. a glaring in your face that even a global ice age did not wipe them out.

OrleansNative
Guest
OrleansNative
4 years ago
Reply to  Antichrist

My idea of a two deck 101 through Richardson Grove is half in jest but also serious because I do not see an obvious solution. Caltrans has a plan to minimize impacts but the plan also is more continued nibbling at the OG redwood ecology.

I disagree that “trees are trees are trees” regards the OG redwood forests. The coast redwoods are the tallest trees on the planet and also the ecosystem with by far the greatest standing biomass accumulations. There are a slew of unique things about the redwood from genetics to so on. KK is correct in that redwood is a species that pre-dates the last ice age, tanoak is another similar species. Madrone has a unique pattern because of the last ice age as its range is from central coast Oregon south with the exception that madrone naturally occurs on Victoria Island, BC.

The OG redwood ecosystem, however resilient, is at risk; 95% is already gone and 2nd and later growth redwood is different in nature than the OG stands. It is only a matter of time that global climate change add to increase fire risk and at some point introduced pathogens will lead to tragedy (think Dutch elm disease, chestnut blight, white pine blister rust, Port Orford cedar root disease, etc.), the best way to reduce this risk is by thoughtful mitigation in the present.

I am a retired geezer who spent 40 plus years of education and career in government and industrial forestry and also a Humboldt county native. What has occurred to the forests, especially on the north coast, is humbling and a lesson on the nature of limits. I support more logging particularly as one way to limit damage from wildfire and anthropomorphic global climate change (and an ongoing major extinction event).

Surely you jest as well.

Fred M. Cain
Guest
4 years ago
Reply to  OrleansNative

“Why not build a two deck 101 on current route?”

That’s an interesting point. I also have another idea. Why not just rebuild the railroad? Railroads tend to be more environmentally “friendly” than trucks anyways. We have so much new technology today that I just cannot accept that an “environmentally friendly” rail line cannot be operated through the Eel River Canyon today.

I believe it can and should be rebuilt. Perhaps more tourists could also leave their cars at home and take the train to the North Coast,

THC
Guest
THC
4 years ago

I’m far from a tree hugger, but I just assumed see Richardson’s Grove left alone. There’s enough cities in this world, if you want the convenience of one move there. As far as shipping prices go, that’s a load of horseshit. I can have shit UPS to my house overnight for less than I can buy it in the stores around here, It’s the 60-plus percent markup that makes things so expensive, not the shipping free. Besides, the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars this project would end up costing cost taxpayers would be way more than they’re ever going to pay in shipping in their lifetime. They should be putting this money where its really needed, like fixing our local roads or putting in the bypass up north. Not widening roads so a handful of shipping companies can make a bigger profit at our expense…..