Showing posts with label Richardson Grove. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richardson Grove. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Preliminary Injunction GRANTED! July 6, 2011
The judge granted the preliminary injunction in the federal lawsuit against CalTrans' Richardson Grove highway plan!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. C 10-04360 WHA
BESS BAIR; TRISHA LEE LOTUS; BRUCE EDWARDS; JEFFREY HEDIN; LOREEN ELIASON; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER, a non-profit corporation; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation; and CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICS, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and CINDY McKIM, in her official capacity as Director of the State of California Department of Transportation, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
INTRODUCTION
This environmental-impact litigation arises out of a proposal to widen Highway 101 through old-growth redwood trees. A preliminary injunction is warranted until a final decision on the merits, for the reasons below.
STATEMENT
Two hundred miles north of San Francisco, at the southern edge of Humboldt County, is
Richardson Grove State Park. It is home to ancient redwoods 300 feet tall and thousands of years old. The park shelters an abundance of wildlife, including the marbled murrelet and spotted owl.
Highway 101 threads through the park for about one mile. Some huge redwood trees come right up to the road, narrowing the two-lane highway to a mere 22 feet (EA 3). Due to its narrow and winding curves, this section of the highway poses safety hazards for large trucks. Specifically, trucks authorized by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, are often longer and carry more volume than standard trucks. Most of these longer vehicles are prohibited from using this section of Highway 101 because of “off-tracking.” A truck off-tracks when its back tires do not follow its front tires around a curve, but rather take the shorter route. Narrow lanes and tight turns lead to off-tracking. Despite the safety hazard, there are a few legislative exceptions, including a temporary exception for livestock haulers, which allow some STAA trucks access through the park (EA 1–4).
Defendants California Department of Transportation and Cindy Kim, the director of Caltrans, have initiated the Richardson Grove Operational Improvement Project to widen the road to meet highway requirements in order to allow all STAA trucks safer passage through the park. The stated purpose of allowing larger trucks through-access on Highway 101 is to lower the cost of transportation for goods imported into and exported from Humboldt County (EA 5). Currently, for instance, STAA trucks going from Oakland to Eureka must take a 446-mile detour via I-5 through Oregon and back south on Route 101 (EA 5).
This environmental-impact controversy arises because widening the road might have adverse effects on the redwoods. Their roots are shallow. The roots extend outward three to ten times the diameter of the tree trunk (EA 41 n.6; Compl. ¶ 36). Their interlacing root system provides mutual reinforcement (Compl. ¶ 71). The soil is loose and aerated. Redwoods breathe through their roots, absorbing air, nutrients, and water. The trees need non-compact soil to thrive (McBride Decl. ¶¶ 11–14).
For these reasons, the proposal is merely to widen the roadway slightly and to do so using minimal-impact techniques. During oral argument, Caltrans’ attorney stated that the plan would fell 54 trees. Only six of them are redwoods, two of which are located inside the park and none of which are old growth — meaning those six redwoods have diameters less than 30 inches (EA 40).
Once cleared, the project plans to regrade, realign, and widen the road. In most cases, the project would shift the center line of the highway by one to six feet. The maximum realignment would shift the centerline 17 feet (EA 62). The construction calls for cut-and-fill techniques. In other words, Caltrans would cut the soil and fill it with sturdy, compact material suitable for highway foundation. This, however, is a main point of contention. (This poses a risk for the root system, which needs loose soil, not compact soil.) To continue with mitigation precautions, excavation near old-growth redwoods would be done by hand or with an air spade. An air spade uses air compression to clear away dirt rather than cutting roots while digging away at soil. Roots that are less than two inches would be cut and watered so they would not dry out. Brow logs would be braced against tree trunks to minimize the effect of fill on the trees (EA 113–15). A retaining wall to support the roadway would be installed spanning 200 feet and reaching ten to thirteen feet high (EA 19). New culverts would replace older ones to improve drainage (EA 41). Clearly, the proposal has been drawn with an eye to mitigating most damage to the redwoods.
Caltrans issued a draft and then a final Environmental Assessment. In its draft EA, Caltrans stated that construction around redwood roots has the “most potential to result in impacts to trees” and that the project would be “likely to [a]dversely [a]ffect” the spotted owl (Draft EA 83, 104). After issuing its draft EA — pursuant to NEPA — and its Section 4(f) analysis — pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303 — Caltrans received hundreds of letters protesting the project (Duggan Decl. Exh. 3-1 through 3-12). In response, Caltrans slightly changed its proposal. In May 2010, Caltrans issued a final EA, which documented relocating a proposed retaining wall, added a chart describing trees whose roots would be affected by the cut and fill soil, more than doubled the estimate of trees whose root structures might be adversely impacted, and cited the names of two arborists who claimed no significant impact would occur (EA 19–20, 108–12). Despite opposition, the agency adopted a “finding of no significant impact.” The FONSI avoided the requirement of performing a complete investigation and producing an Environmental Impact Statement.
Plaintiffs are individual supporters and non-profit environmental groups who claim this project will jeopardize the health of the trees and wildlife. Plaintiff Bess Bair is the granddaughter of the owner of The Harstook Inn (situated in the Park), which was sold to Save-The-Redwoods League. The granddaughter of the man who originally gave Richardson Grove to California, plaintiff Trish Lee Lotus remains an avid visitor to the Grove. Plaintiff Bruce Edwards is a truck driver from Humboldt County who regularly drives on this section of Highway 101. While performing volunteer work for the Piercy fire department, plaintiff Jeffrey Hedin drives through Richardson Grove. Plaintiff Loreen Eliason owns an inn on Highway 101 just six miles north of Garberville and claims that the preservation of Richardson Grove is essential to her business and those like it (Compl. ¶¶ 20–23). Plaintiffs Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics are non-profit organizations that promote environmental protection. These groups and individuals bring this action on behalf of their members who have an interest in California’s wildlife and natural wonders (Compl. ¶¶ 24–26). Harm to the redwoods and natural environment of the park would allegedly irreparably hurt the “health, recreational, scientific, cultural, inspirational, educational, [and] aesthetic” interests of the plaintiffs (Compl. ¶ 27).
This action alleges that defendants have violated the National Environmental Protection Act, the Department of Transportation Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint claims defendants violated NEPA by failing to (1) establish the need and purpose for the project, (2) disclose and evaluate the significant environmental effects, (3) explore and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the project, (4) adequately document public comments and concerns and responses to those comments, and (5) prepare an environmental impact statement (Compl. ¶ 99). Plaintiffs also allege that Caltrans violated Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act by failing to determine that no alternatives existed and by failing to create a plan that would minimize harm (Compl. ¶ 120). In not consulting with the National Park Service concerning the effects of relocating the retaining wall closer to the Eel River, defendants allegedly violated Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Compl. ¶ 125). The Administrative Procedure Act was violated, it is said, by approving and adopting an EA/FONSI contrary to NEPA and Section 4(f) standards.
By the instant motion, plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to halt all activity on this project while we litigate the merits. At this stage, defendants have not submitted the administrative record, but instead we have the record submitted on this motion.
ANALYSIS
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction, (2) that she is likely to succeed on the merits, (3) that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). So long as a likelihood of irreparable harm is always shown, these elements are balanced on a sliding scale, so that a stronger showing of one may offset a weaker showing of others. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). More specifically, if a likelihood of irreparable harm is shown, “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of
hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. at 1134–35 (citation omitted).
Here's a link to the July 6, 2011 order from the judge. (pdf)
http://www.box.net/shared/7b2xe9mvd6de4zpkz7vv
Below is the first 5 pages, a glimpse...
http://www.box.net/shared/
Below is the first 5 pages, a glimpse...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. C 10-04360 WHA
BESS BAIR; TRISHA LEE LOTUS; BRUCE EDWARDS; JEFFREY HEDIN; LOREEN ELIASON; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER, a non-profit corporation; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, a non-profit corporation; and CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICS, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and CINDY McKIM, in her official capacity as Director of the State of California Department of Transportation, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
INTRODUCTION
This environmental-impact litigation arises out of a proposal to widen Highway 101 through old-growth redwood trees. A preliminary injunction is warranted until a final decision on the merits, for the reasons below.
STATEMENT
Two hundred miles north of San Francisco, at the southern edge of Humboldt County, is
Richardson Grove State Park. It is home to ancient redwoods 300 feet tall and thousands of years old. The park shelters an abundance of wildlife, including the marbled murrelet and spotted owl.
Highway 101 threads through the park for about one mile. Some huge redwood trees come right up to the road, narrowing the two-lane highway to a mere 22 feet (EA 3). Due to its narrow and winding curves, this section of the highway poses safety hazards for large trucks. Specifically, trucks authorized by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, are often longer and carry more volume than standard trucks. Most of these longer vehicles are prohibited from using this section of Highway 101 because of “off-tracking.” A truck off-tracks when its back tires do not follow its front tires around a curve, but rather take the shorter route. Narrow lanes and tight turns lead to off-tracking. Despite the safety hazard, there are a few legislative exceptions, including a temporary exception for livestock haulers, which allow some STAA trucks access through the park (EA 1–4).
Defendants California Department of Transportation and Cindy Kim, the director of Caltrans, have initiated the Richardson Grove Operational Improvement Project to widen the road to meet highway requirements in order to allow all STAA trucks safer passage through the park. The stated purpose of allowing larger trucks through-access on Highway 101 is to lower the cost of transportation for goods imported into and exported from Humboldt County (EA 5). Currently, for instance, STAA trucks going from Oakland to Eureka must take a 446-mile detour via I-5 through Oregon and back south on Route 101 (EA 5).
This environmental-impact controversy arises because widening the road might have adverse effects on the redwoods. Their roots are shallow. The roots extend outward three to ten times the diameter of the tree trunk (EA 41 n.6; Compl. ¶ 36). Their interlacing root system provides mutual reinforcement (Compl. ¶ 71). The soil is loose and aerated. Redwoods breathe through their roots, absorbing air, nutrients, and water. The trees need non-compact soil to thrive (McBride Decl. ¶¶ 11–14).
For these reasons, the proposal is merely to widen the roadway slightly and to do so using minimal-impact techniques. During oral argument, Caltrans’ attorney stated that the plan would fell 54 trees. Only six of them are redwoods, two of which are located inside the park and none of which are old growth — meaning those six redwoods have diameters less than 30 inches (EA 40).
Once cleared, the project plans to regrade, realign, and widen the road. In most cases, the project would shift the center line of the highway by one to six feet. The maximum realignment would shift the centerline 17 feet (EA 62). The construction calls for cut-and-fill techniques. In other words, Caltrans would cut the soil and fill it with sturdy, compact material suitable for highway foundation. This, however, is a main point of contention. (This poses a risk for the root system, which needs loose soil, not compact soil.) To continue with mitigation precautions, excavation near old-growth redwoods would be done by hand or with an air spade. An air spade uses air compression to clear away dirt rather than cutting roots while digging away at soil. Roots that are less than two inches would be cut and watered so they would not dry out. Brow logs would be braced against tree trunks to minimize the effect of fill on the trees (EA 113–15). A retaining wall to support the roadway would be installed spanning 200 feet and reaching ten to thirteen feet high (EA 19). New culverts would replace older ones to improve drainage (EA 41). Clearly, the proposal has been drawn with an eye to mitigating most damage to the redwoods.
Caltrans issued a draft and then a final Environmental Assessment. In its draft EA, Caltrans stated that construction around redwood roots has the “most potential to result in impacts to trees” and that the project would be “likely to [a]dversely [a]ffect” the spotted owl (Draft EA 83, 104). After issuing its draft EA — pursuant to NEPA — and its Section 4(f) analysis — pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303 — Caltrans received hundreds of letters protesting the project (Duggan Decl. Exh. 3-1 through 3-12). In response, Caltrans slightly changed its proposal. In May 2010, Caltrans issued a final EA, which documented relocating a proposed retaining wall, added a chart describing trees whose roots would be affected by the cut and fill soil, more than doubled the estimate of trees whose root structures might be adversely impacted, and cited the names of two arborists who claimed no significant impact would occur (EA 19–20, 108–12). Despite opposition, the agency adopted a “finding of no significant impact.” The FONSI avoided the requirement of performing a complete investigation and producing an Environmental Impact Statement.
Plaintiffs are individual supporters and non-profit environmental groups who claim this project will jeopardize the health of the trees and wildlife. Plaintiff Bess Bair is the granddaughter of the owner of The Harstook Inn (situated in the Park), which was sold to Save-The-Redwoods League. The granddaughter of the man who originally gave Richardson Grove to California, plaintiff Trish Lee Lotus remains an avid visitor to the Grove. Plaintiff Bruce Edwards is a truck driver from Humboldt County who regularly drives on this section of Highway 101. While performing volunteer work for the Piercy fire department, plaintiff Jeffrey Hedin drives through Richardson Grove. Plaintiff Loreen Eliason owns an inn on Highway 101 just six miles north of Garberville and claims that the preservation of Richardson Grove is essential to her business and those like it (Compl. ¶¶ 20–23). Plaintiffs Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics are non-profit organizations that promote environmental protection. These groups and individuals bring this action on behalf of their members who have an interest in California’s wildlife and natural wonders (Compl. ¶¶ 24–26). Harm to the redwoods and natural environment of the park would allegedly irreparably hurt the “health, recreational, scientific, cultural, inspirational, educational, [and] aesthetic” interests of the plaintiffs (Compl. ¶ 27).
This action alleges that defendants have violated the National Environmental Protection Act, the Department of Transportation Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint claims defendants violated NEPA by failing to (1) establish the need and purpose for the project, (2) disclose and evaluate the significant environmental effects, (3) explore and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the project, (4) adequately document public comments and concerns and responses to those comments, and (5) prepare an environmental impact statement (Compl. ¶ 99). Plaintiffs also allege that Caltrans violated Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act by failing to determine that no alternatives existed and by failing to create a plan that would minimize harm (Compl. ¶ 120). In not consulting with the National Park Service concerning the effects of relocating the retaining wall closer to the Eel River, defendants allegedly violated Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Compl. ¶ 125). The Administrative Procedure Act was violated, it is said, by approving and adopting an EA/FONSI contrary to NEPA and Section 4(f) standards.
By the instant motion, plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to halt all activity on this project while we litigate the merits. At this stage, defendants have not submitted the administrative record, but instead we have the record submitted on this motion.
ANALYSIS
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction, (2) that she is likely to succeed on the merits, (3) that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). So long as a likelihood of irreparable harm is always shown, these elements are balanced on a sliding scale, so that a stronger showing of one may offset a weaker showing of others. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). More specifically, if a likelihood of irreparable harm is shown, “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of
hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. at 1134–35 (citation omitted).
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The Highway Expansion Would Significantly Harm One Hundred and Eight Old Growth Redwood Trees
Redwood Times Honors our Namesake http://www.redwoodtimes.com/ci_18321895
****
Here is a link to Dr. McBride's Declaration
http://www.box.net/shared/djce84fkqklcmu10116s presented in the lawsuit against CalTrans brought by the Environmental Information Protection Center [EPIC], Center for Biological Diversity, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics [CATS], and individuals. The case is formally called:
I appreciate this fact-filled article in Redwood Times addressing the concerns of those of us who treasure Richardson Grove and our unique Humboldt way of life. Gary Hughes and Barbara Kennedy presented Rotary new information on the likely irreparable impact to Richardson Grove, and questioned the value of this project for our community.
The new report by Dr. Joseph McBride -- forester, professor at UC Berkeley, author of 277 articles on trees (especially Redwoods) and adviser to State Parks -- offers the real science that CalTrans failed to give.
Dr. McBride’s tree-by-tree analysis of project impact on RG finds 108 old-growth trees that will have root systems significantly affected, and anticipates 37 are likely to die.
We cannot accept this likelihood of irreparable harm to our State Park, and the Redwood Curtain.
Thanks to Rotary and to Redwood Times for this good start to a fair hearing.
Lauren Oliver****
Here is a link to Dr. McBride's Declaration
http://www.box.net/shared/djce84fkqklcmu10116s presented in the lawsuit against CalTrans brought by the Environmental Information Protection Center [EPIC], Center for Biological Diversity, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics [CATS], and individuals. The case is formally called:
BESS BAIR et al vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California
Thursday, June 23, 2011
"large diesel trucks on 101...24-hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year"
Richardson Grove as important as general plan update
Ken Miller/For The Times-Standard
06/22/2011
Wholesale STAA access through Richardson Grove is potentially the most immediately devastating threat to our county.
It would open the north-south link in a circuit connecting Interstate 5 and U.S. Highway 101 via routes 199, 299, and 20, putting large diesel trucks on 101 through, not just into, our county, 24-hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
Signaling or one-way traffic would create harmful congestion in the grove, and do nothing about the STAA traffic through the county.
Who benefits?
Mainly the international trucking industry and a few local businesses. Caltrans' EIR acknowledges that local industries do not need these trucks: “... There is a maximum weight restriction for loads as well as maximum length of cabs and trailers, and that for heavy loads, the economic advantage for the larger [STAA] vehicles is not there,” concluding that the “Proposed project would not result in significant increases in overall economic productivity in the region.”
Wal-Mart and Home Depot in Crescent City have been the squeakiest wheels for Richardson Grove and 199, whining that lack of STAA access costs them $15,000 monthly, savings they would surely use to undercut local businesses, and exchange good paying jobs for low-wage employment as their stores are linked all along the 101 corridor.
Could the new general plan stand up to STAA-related sprawl development?
Vehicular traffic from the proposed Marina Center is estimated at 16,000 trips daily. Add STAA to that and the pressure to open and widen Waterfront Drive and bypass Eureka escalates. Caltrans never considers this, despite the 2003 Caltrans-funded study warning about the “constraint on economic development” from “traffic congestion on U.S. 101 in Eureka's commercial and retail areas due to heavy overlapping uses for trucking, through traffic, and local traffic.”
Ambulance and coroner business may spike. These large trucks represent less than 3 percent of vehicles, but are involved in 14 percent of fatal crashes, and automobile passengers constitute 98 percent of the fatalities in car vs. truck accidents.
Who loses?
The project is a job killer for many local businesses, and will cost the rest of us in road damages, safety hazards, noise and air pollution, congestion, and quality of life. Trinidad will not be so quaint, or quiet, with 24/7 STAA on the 101 grade.
Many of these trucks have extra cabs with kitchens and beds enabling transit from Mexico to Canada without needing a motel or restaurant.
Ancient redwoods may not tolerate modern road use and construction technology. Trees that have survived for a century next to the current roadbed may have benefited from the paucity of heavy truck traffic, as well as construction in 1915 with horse and buggies, hand tools, and gravel, mitigating factors that this project would undo overnight.
Arguments that road construction will not harm ancient redwoods rely on Caltrans' arborists who have no expertise in redwoods, and on Caltrans' own claims.
Experts like Steve Sillett and Stan Binnie registered serious concerns about disturbing woody and feeder roots, justified by the numerous ancient redwoods whose tops are dying back along 101, and those which have fallen, revealing evidence of road or path-induced damage. Hence Redwood Park warnings to avoid walking over roots.
Scientific literature is clear that redwood roots interconnect for up to 500 feet, and that roots larger than one inch are considered “major.” Yet Caltrans claims that roots larger than two inches in diameter will not be cut in the structural root zone, ignoring the critical feeder roots. According to HSU's Professor Sillett, there have been no relevant studies on the impacts of roadways on redwood roots.
If ancient redwoods suffer due to this project, how many hundreds or thousands of years will it take for the damage to show up? And what penalty, or relief, is there?
Perhaps the saddest casualty has been the failure to consider alternatives to 6 mpg STAA trucks for our goods movement in the face of greenhouse gas emissions, rising fuel costs and sea levels, and climate change.
Short sea shipping from our undeveloped port is the most efficient transport modality on the planet, and with 299 STAA access it could meet nearly all of our shipping needs, creating boatloads of jobs.
A 2003 Caltrans' Cambridge Systematics study summed up the benefit of not widening 101 through Richardson Grove, and retaining the critical buffer between 101 and I-5: “The county's relative geographic isolation has spared it from some of the sprawl and growth pressures that have impacted many of California's coastal communities, lending the area a quality of life cherished by residents.”
Thursday, May 26, 2011
May 25, 2011: Injunction Sought in Lawsuit Against CalTrans
For Immediate Release, May 25, 2011
Contacts: Gary Hughes, EPIC; Patty Clary, CATS; Peter Galvin, Center for Biological DiversityChallenge Seeks to Halt California Highway Project That Would Destroy Ancient Redwoods
SAN FRANCISCO— A coalition of conservation groups and local residents today asked a federal judge to stop California transportation officials from moving ahead with a controversial highway project that would jeopardize ancient stands of redwood trees in northern California’s Richardson Grove State Park.
The coalition seeks to halt plans by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to realign a section of Highway 101 that winds through old-growth redwoods in the park. The work would require crews to dig into the roots of towering redwoods that stand along the highway within park boundaries. Today’s filing asks a judge to stop the project until legal proceedings are complete.
The threat of possibly fatal damage to the prized ancient trees, as well as harm to sensitive wildlife posed by the controversial project, is driving today’s legal challenge, which is the second filed by the coalition. Caltrans has failed to evaluate impacts of the project in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
“The importance of this old-growth redwood stand, in view of the important heritage of the redwood forest, requires special consideration before projects that would impact the stand are allowed to go forward,” Joe McBride, a professor of forestry and landscape architecture at the University of California at Berkeley, said in today's filing. “Substantial, irreparable damage would occur to the trees in the project area. This would, in turn, cause negative impacts to the overall health of the forest.”
McBride’s finding is based on his scientific review of the potential of impacts to each tree along the project route — a review plaintiffs show Caltrans failed to undertake.
“This project will cause major damage to one of our most prized state parks,” said Gary Hughes of the Environmental Protection Information Center, one of the plaintiff groups and spokesman for the coalition. “For Caltrans to railroad this multimillion-dollar project by grossly understating its impacts is a violation of the public's trust and a wasteful use of taxpayer money.”
“With less than 3 percent of our ancient redwood trees remaining, we cannot allow Caltrans to injure and kill the precious giant trees of Richardson Grove State Park,” said Peter Galvin, conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We will fight this project to the end, no matter how long it takes.”
Plaintiffs are Trisha Lee Lotus, Bess Bair, Bruce Edwards, Jeffrey Hedin, Loreen Eliason, Environmental Protection Information Center, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics and the Center for Biological Diversity. They are represented by a team that includes Philip Gregory and former congressman “Pete” McCloskey of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, a law firm in San Francisco.
Lead Hazardous Waste in Richardson Grove
There is an important issue concerning Richardson Grove that Caltrans has done their best to keep from the public's eye. This issue is hazardous waste in the form of aerially deposited lead (ADL).
ADL is lead left behind from years of leaded gasoline use. On old roads like 101 that have been in existence since the early 1900's, lead was continuously deposited from the tailpipes of cars and poorly combusted leaded gasoline. This lead ended up in either the surrounding soil or moving downstream. In areas with thick canopy cover and deep rich soil, like Richardson Grove, much of the lead remained in the soil and usually ended up between 6 and 24 inches underground. The top six inches are usually lead free, as this is duff and recent soil accumulation post leaded gasoline.
Lead serves no purpose in our bodies and is dangerous to all living things. It is toxic to numerous organs and biological functions, including the heart, bones, intestines, kidneys, and reproductive and nervous systems. It is especially toxic to children, causing potentially permanent learning disabilities and behavior disorders. There is no safe threshold for lead exposure, no amount small enough to not cause harm. We all carry a pre-existing body burden of lead in our bones, blood and tissue, and unless specialized therapys are undertaken, it remains for life. That is why hazardous waste guidelines for lead exist. In Richardson Grove, levels of lead were found in many places to be above hazardous waste levels, and other places just slightly below. Considering how sensitive a state park like Richardson Grove is, with familys camping and people strolling about throughout the year, and automobile traffic up 101, one would think that CalTrans would care about the potential for exposing people to lead. They don't.
Removing leaded hazardous waste from roadsides requires great care and large amounts of money. Care and money that Caltrans doesn't have. This is why Caltrans is doing their best to avoid listing areas in the state as hazardous waste sites. They are doing this by either raising the allowable limits 30 times current standards in non sensitive areas. Or in the case of Richardson Grove and other sensitive areas, fudging the books and manipulating data collection. They did this in four ways;
1) Caltrans tests every six inches and then combines these together for a "Total Threshold Limit Concentration" (TTLC). If the combined levels exceed 5 ppm soluble lead its hazardous waste. Their rationale for using this dubious method is that all of the removed soil will be mixed up into one mass by the projects end. However, in the case of Richardson Grove, the project calls for excavating down 24" (except for new wall pillars that go much deeper), yet Caltrans only tested down to the 18" depth, avoiding the area with potentially the greatest concentration of lead. Caltrans website states that “Aerially deposited lead is typically found within the top 2 feet of material in unpaved areas within the highway right of way”.
2) The top 4 inches, which are lead free, were added to the mix to come up with a TTLC that was just under haz waste criteria. Yet this soil will not end up with the rest of the soil and shouldn't have been added. The FEIR states "The top 4 inches of duff (redwood tree and Douglas fir leaf litter) shall be removed, stored at a staging area location and subsequently spread out on exposed disturbed soils within the park boundary."
3) Caltrans never tested the area where the new wall is going and where the deepest excavating is to take place.
4) Caltrans used an inaccurate test method. Even though Caltrans has always prided themselves as being more protective from hazardous lead exposure than other states because they use a test method known as CA-WET (CA=citric acid), for Richardson Grove they used a method called Di-Wet. This method is known for being inaccurate, so much so that in 2007 WQCB issued a memorandum and action alert that stated “analytical data from the Waste Extraction Test (WET) performed with deionized water as the extractant (DI-WET) were used to classify a waste stream as non-hazardous. When samples of the waste were subjected to the correct version of the WET (using citric acid as the extractant), it became clear that the waste had been improperly tested initially and may have been inappropriately accepted for discharge to a landfill that was not permitted to accept hazardous waste. As a result, the owner and operator of that landfill may face significant enforcement proceedings and expensive corrective action measures.”
For Caltrans to honestly evaluate the potential for lead hazardous waste, they need to retest to the depth of 24”, the need to test the new wall site, they need to exclude the 0-4” horizon from the TTLC and they need to use their normal method of CA-WET when they test. But even then, the question will remain, will they manipulate new testing as well. Since the answer is probably yes, the testing should instead be done by an independent agency that can be trusted.
Dan Zimmerman / Environmental Investigator / Northcoast Ocean and River Protection Association (NORPA)
Thursday, May 5, 2011
May 4, 2011 Lumberjack Article
Caltrans STAA Juggernaut Stalls at Richardson Grove
by Emma Nation
The Arcata-based Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) announced on April 20 that Caltrans agreed not to bid the Richardson Grove Improvement Project or otherwise move forward on their plan to widen Richardson Grove before July 1.
EPIC and a coalition of environmental groups and individuals filed a lawsuit against Caltrans for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act in the California Superior Court in San Francisco in May 2010, and the case was transferred to Eureka in November 2010.
“We are intent in seeing that the merits of our case are heard before Caltrans attempts to implement the project, and this development is an important step in achieving that objective,” said EPIC executive director Gary Graham Hughes.
Hughes cited “environmental democracy” as one reason for the legal case, stating that Caltrans has “largely ignored” complaints about the project from citizens throughout the county and state. The legal challenge is based on procedural grounds because, Hughes says, “It is the precise and correct facilitation of the environmental review process that guarantees democracy.”
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), passed by Congress in 1982 and implemented in California the following year, set the maximum limit for trucks on the national highway system. The largest rigs include sleeper cabs which, when coupled with the largest legal trailer, puts the overall length of the truck over the California legal limit going through Richardson Grove.
Caltrans terms their Richardson Grove STAA-access project as “a long-standing transportation priority” for Humboldt County.
California law allows maximum-length STAA moving vans and cattle transports through Richardson Grove, and these vehicles pass through the grove daily.
David Spreen of Kneeland has been following the issue since 2007. He points out that the largest STAA rigs are not the industry standard, but routinely referred to as “industry standard” to create an argument for imperative road widening through Richardson Grove and on all major routes into the region. He says the largest STAA trucks are not appropriate for Humboldt County.
“If we’re going to become a de facto part of the national highway system, what are the overall implications of that for the county? They’ll put a lot of wear and tear on the county roads once they’re off the highway,” he said.
Spreen says Caltrans asserts that the improved access for the big rigs will not result in more trucks, just fewer loads in larger trucks.
“To my knowledge, there has never been a project allowing larger trucks to travel through an area that resulted in no increase in truck traffic,” he says.
In a letter to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Spreen asked the agency to consider the cumulative watershed impacts of road building the same way it reviews the cumulative impacts of timber harvesting.
Spreen cites a November 17 article in the San Francisco Chronicle by Peter Fimrite, reporting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warned Caltrans that its storm runoff management is inadequate throughout the state.
Fimrite quoted EPA enforcement officer Greg Gholson: “At any given construction site the problems may not have required enforcement, but taken as a whole the agency was very concerned with the deficiencies that were seen.”
The Chronicle article said EPA documents revealed storm water discharges of metals, sediment, oil, grease, pesticides and trash from numerous Caltrans construction sites along California’s 50,000 miles of highway and freeway.
Spreen urged Water Board members to deny Caltrans a permit and send the matter back to Water Board staff to conduct a cumulative impact analysis to be completed by December 31, 2011, after Caltrans releases its upgraded storm water management plan.
Luis Rivera, executive at the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, said Caltrans' 401 water permit for the Richardson Grove project has been approved and sent to Sacramento for attorney review before it will be signed.
Although the agency is suing Caltrans for numerous 401 permit violations during the Confusion Hill Bypass Project (completed several years ago a few miles south of the Humboldt/Mendocino border), Rivera says the agency can’t deny a permit application based on Caltrans' past work performance because the water board has no power to effect reprisals for shoddy work. That matter would be up to the California Legislature, he said.
Answering concerns about excavating and severing old-growth redwood roots in the Richardson Grove plan, Caltrans says it won’t cut roots over two inches, and discounts environmental concerns that the work will harm the trees.
Caltrans states, however, that similar work on the Weott Four Bridges Project (in the planning phase) is “likely” to harm the old-growth redwood trees at that location.
The smallest, “hairy roots,” are the main water uptake organs for redwood trees.
Caltrans also states that it will work around the nesting season of the marbled murrelet in Richardson Grove, where potential nesting exists. However, the agency says in the Four Bridges project proposal that it can’t avoid working during marbled murrelet nesting season because it has to take advantage of the good weather.
Caltrans’ road widening project for Highway 199/197 may face similar problems to the Richardson Grove project, because the road through Jedediah Smith State Park also narrowly twists through old-growth forest.
The Middle of Buckhorn Project, a portion of Caltrans’ Highway 299’s proposed modification, has 17 curve improvements and is entirely earthwork—no bridges or major structures are in the plans—and could represent a major threat to the health of the Trinity River during construction and afterwards, as erosion often accompanies deforestation and mountain removal.
Chris Harvey, Caltrans District 2 Project Manager, calls the $11 million Middle of Buckhorn “a great project,” and says it’s funded by the agency’s safety program because of the accident history there.
Not everyone shares Harvey’s enthusiasm for the project, however.
Joseph Orozco, manager of tribal radio station KIDE-FM in Hoopa, and founder of the 7-Rivers Radio Network, says if Highway 299 and other roads were good enough to get the timber out of the region, they should be good enough for other exports. “If it wasn't for the roads, the logs wouldn't have gotten out of here,” he said.
Orozco says improving conditions for the big rigs would enable all traffic to go faster. He says Highway 96, which bisects Hoopa Valley, just off the 299, makes it difficult to develop the region's economy.
“People come in at a high speed and unconsciously go by at a high speed, making it unsafe for kids and others,” he said. “It's very easy to be in harm's way here.”
Orozco said fuel prices should be enough to discourage adopting transnational trucking as economic policy. “Keep the roads the way they are,” he advised. “They’ve been serving us for years. Keep commerce within your geographic area.”
In 2009 the Humboldt County Planning Commission disbursed grant money from the Headwaters Fund, which it oversees, to the Office of Economic Development to promote the Caltrans Richardson Grove Project to the public. The OED reportedly spent some of this money contracting a public relations firm to help prominent locals, including Caltrans executive Charles Fielder, write and edit six “My Word” columns in the Eureka Times-Standard, all promoting the Richardson Grove STAA project.
The OED supervises a branding scheme called Humboldt Made, and reportedly used some of the Headwaters grant money to produce a series of commercial videos featuring local products from the county's largest local exporters, including Sun Valley Floral, Lost Coast Brewery, and Cypress Grove Cheese.
These companies complain about the current cost of trucking their products out of the area, but critics of the STAA-access project say there is little evidence that their cost savings from using STAA trucks would translate into more jobs in the county.
Cypress Grove was bought last August by Emmi Holding Company, a Swiss conglomerate.
There have been 20 arrests for civil disobedience at recent demonstrations at Caltrans and before the Board of Supervisors.
Some say Humboldt County should develop sea and rail commercial routes because increased truck traffic sacrifices programs of economic sustainability and compromises the health of the region’s remaining natural resources.
Others say Humboldt County’s slow pace, quality of life, and natural beauty is what attracts tourists, some of whom see old growth redwood trees for the first time driving north on Highway 101 through Richardson Grove.
http://thelumberjack.org/news/caltrans-staa-juggernaut-stalls-richardson-grove
Wed, 2011-05-04
by Emma Nation
The Arcata-based Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) announced on April 20 that Caltrans agreed not to bid the Richardson Grove Improvement Project or otherwise move forward on their plan to widen Richardson Grove before July 1.
EPIC and a coalition of environmental groups and individuals filed a lawsuit against Caltrans for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act in the California Superior Court in San Francisco in May 2010, and the case was transferred to Eureka in November 2010.
“We are intent in seeing that the merits of our case are heard before Caltrans attempts to implement the project, and this development is an important step in achieving that objective,” said EPIC executive director Gary Graham Hughes.
Hughes cited “environmental democracy” as one reason for the legal case, stating that Caltrans has “largely ignored” complaints about the project from citizens throughout the county and state. The legal challenge is based on procedural grounds because, Hughes says, “It is the precise and correct facilitation of the environmental review process that guarantees democracy.”
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA), passed by Congress in 1982 and implemented in California the following year, set the maximum limit for trucks on the national highway system. The largest rigs include sleeper cabs which, when coupled with the largest legal trailer, puts the overall length of the truck over the California legal limit going through Richardson Grove.
Caltrans terms their Richardson Grove STAA-access project as “a long-standing transportation priority” for Humboldt County.
California law allows maximum-length STAA moving vans and cattle transports through Richardson Grove, and these vehicles pass through the grove daily.
David Spreen of Kneeland has been following the issue since 2007. He points out that the largest STAA rigs are not the industry standard, but routinely referred to as “industry standard” to create an argument for imperative road widening through Richardson Grove and on all major routes into the region. He says the largest STAA trucks are not appropriate for Humboldt County.
“If we’re going to become a de facto part of the national highway system, what are the overall implications of that for the county? They’ll put a lot of wear and tear on the county roads once they’re off the highway,” he said.
Spreen says Caltrans asserts that the improved access for the big rigs will not result in more trucks, just fewer loads in larger trucks.
“To my knowledge, there has never been a project allowing larger trucks to travel through an area that resulted in no increase in truck traffic,” he says.
In a letter to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Spreen asked the agency to consider the cumulative watershed impacts of road building the same way it reviews the cumulative impacts of timber harvesting.
Spreen cites a November 17 article in the San Francisco Chronicle by Peter Fimrite, reporting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warned Caltrans that its storm runoff management is inadequate throughout the state.
Fimrite quoted EPA enforcement officer Greg Gholson: “At any given construction site the problems may not have required enforcement, but taken as a whole the agency was very concerned with the deficiencies that were seen.”
The Chronicle article said EPA documents revealed storm water discharges of metals, sediment, oil, grease, pesticides and trash from numerous Caltrans construction sites along California’s 50,000 miles of highway and freeway.
Spreen urged Water Board members to deny Caltrans a permit and send the matter back to Water Board staff to conduct a cumulative impact analysis to be completed by December 31, 2011, after Caltrans releases its upgraded storm water management plan.
Luis Rivera, executive at the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, said Caltrans' 401 water permit for the Richardson Grove project has been approved and sent to Sacramento for attorney review before it will be signed.
Although the agency is suing Caltrans for numerous 401 permit violations during the Confusion Hill Bypass Project (completed several years ago a few miles south of the Humboldt/Mendocino border), Rivera says the agency can’t deny a permit application based on Caltrans' past work performance because the water board has no power to effect reprisals for shoddy work. That matter would be up to the California Legislature, he said.
Answering concerns about excavating and severing old-growth redwood roots in the Richardson Grove plan, Caltrans says it won’t cut roots over two inches, and discounts environmental concerns that the work will harm the trees.
Caltrans states, however, that similar work on the Weott Four Bridges Project (in the planning phase) is “likely” to harm the old-growth redwood trees at that location.
The smallest, “hairy roots,” are the main water uptake organs for redwood trees.
Caltrans also states that it will work around the nesting season of the marbled murrelet in Richardson Grove, where potential nesting exists. However, the agency says in the Four Bridges project proposal that it can’t avoid working during marbled murrelet nesting season because it has to take advantage of the good weather.
Caltrans’ road widening project for Highway 199/197 may face similar problems to the Richardson Grove project, because the road through Jedediah Smith State Park also narrowly twists through old-growth forest.
The Middle of Buckhorn Project, a portion of Caltrans’ Highway 299’s proposed modification, has 17 curve improvements and is entirely earthwork—no bridges or major structures are in the plans—and could represent a major threat to the health of the Trinity River during construction and afterwards, as erosion often accompanies deforestation and mountain removal.
Chris Harvey, Caltrans District 2 Project Manager, calls the $11 million Middle of Buckhorn “a great project,” and says it’s funded by the agency’s safety program because of the accident history there.
Not everyone shares Harvey’s enthusiasm for the project, however.
Joseph Orozco, manager of tribal radio station KIDE-FM in Hoopa, and founder of the 7-Rivers Radio Network, says if Highway 299 and other roads were good enough to get the timber out of the region, they should be good enough for other exports. “If it wasn't for the roads, the logs wouldn't have gotten out of here,” he said.
Orozco says improving conditions for the big rigs would enable all traffic to go faster. He says Highway 96, which bisects Hoopa Valley, just off the 299, makes it difficult to develop the region's economy.
“People come in at a high speed and unconsciously go by at a high speed, making it unsafe for kids and others,” he said. “It's very easy to be in harm's way here.”
Orozco said fuel prices should be enough to discourage adopting transnational trucking as economic policy. “Keep the roads the way they are,” he advised. “They’ve been serving us for years. Keep commerce within your geographic area.”
In 2009 the Humboldt County Planning Commission disbursed grant money from the Headwaters Fund, which it oversees, to the Office of Economic Development to promote the Caltrans Richardson Grove Project to the public. The OED reportedly spent some of this money contracting a public relations firm to help prominent locals, including Caltrans executive Charles Fielder, write and edit six “My Word” columns in the Eureka Times-Standard, all promoting the Richardson Grove STAA project.
The OED supervises a branding scheme called Humboldt Made, and reportedly used some of the Headwaters grant money to produce a series of commercial videos featuring local products from the county's largest local exporters, including Sun Valley Floral, Lost Coast Brewery, and Cypress Grove Cheese.
These companies complain about the current cost of trucking their products out of the area, but critics of the STAA-access project say there is little evidence that their cost savings from using STAA trucks would translate into more jobs in the county.
Cypress Grove was bought last August by Emmi Holding Company, a Swiss conglomerate.
There have been 20 arrests for civil disobedience at recent demonstrations at Caltrans and before the Board of Supervisors.
Some say Humboldt County should develop sea and rail commercial routes because increased truck traffic sacrifices programs of economic sustainability and compromises the health of the region’s remaining natural resources.
Others say Humboldt County’s slow pace, quality of life, and natural beauty is what attracts tourists, some of whom see old growth redwood trees for the first time driving north on Highway 101 through Richardson Grove.
http://thelumberjack.org/news/caltrans-staa-juggernaut-stalls-richardson-grove
Wed, 2011-05-04
Saturday, April 23, 2011
PHOTOS from April 18, 2011 Rally/Protest at CalTrans, on the Streets of Eureka, & at the Courthouse
Etched in stone and delivered to CalTrans:
ONE DEMAND. CANCEL THE PLAN!
ONE DEMAND. CANCEL THE PLAN!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Thurs, March 31st Direct Action Training!
This Thursday, March 31st, on Cesar Chavez' birthday, Richardson Grove Action Now will be facilitating a Non-Violent Direct Action training. We will begin at 12:00 Noon at Synapsis in Eureka. That's way down on the west end of 3rd Street, next to the St. Vincent de Paul's Free Meal site. Synapsis is a great space and we're excited to be able to do the training there!This direct action workshop will focus on insurgent skills: organizing ways to become a wrench in the machine; demystifying potential legal risks; preparing us to assert our power with confidence; and arming us with knowledge to prevent the legal system from separating or silencing us.
We will talk about non-violent resistance, historical and current examples of direct action for social and environmental justice, consensus decision-making, choosing our targets and non-violent methods, action roles and affinity groups, and legal and solidarity tactics. While Richardson Grove Action Now is looking forward to more and more people mobilizing and feeling ready for action to stop the road widening, this training can be useful for anyone wishing to stand up, fight back, and assert the power of the people!
The training is free and for people of all ages. We'll have food, coffee, tea, and juice and we welcome you to bring food as well.
Looking forward to seeing you there!
Thursday, March 31st
NOON
at
Synapsis, 47 West 3rd Street, Eureka
NO ROAD WIDENING THROUGH RICHARDSON GROVE!
Thursday, March 31st
NOON
at
Synapsis, 47 West 3rd Street, Eureka
NO ROAD WIDENING THROUGH RICHARDSON GROVE!
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
NEW FLIER for NEW RALLY DATE
THE POSTPONED RALLY IN GARBERVILLE IS NOW PLANNED FOR FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Letter To Board of Supes from Chief Thomas Dostou
Dear Sirs and Madame:
It has come to my attention by way of an American Indian associate of mine in Northern California that there is a question concerning the destruction of old growth Redwoods in the Richardson Grove area .
I am presently visiting American Indian communities around the Nation with the intention of coordinating actions related to various other attempts on the part of private or/and public entities to encroach on or destroy natural environments which we in the American Indian community view as having a spiritual as well as a cultural importance for our People.
I am quite sure that you all are aware of the terrible genocide and exploitation that has occurred to American Indian people across this land over the past 500 years. And I am also sure that you are also aware in the particular of the massacre of the Wiyot peoples in 1860 by white settlers.
With this and more in mind, I am sure that you understand that we as Native people are very concerned when we hear that people are wanting to again destroy our lands because we never voluntarily gave up our lands but were forced to cede these lands at the point of a gun or sword. No treaties were signed by the coastal tribes of California giving up the trees, rivers, lakes etc. So basically, you and your government accordingly are an illegal body as per the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and the World Court of the Hague.
What right do you have to decide what will be done with the lands which your ancestors took illegally ?
Thank you .
Chief Thomas Dostou
Nabesse Pishum ( Tom Dostou )
It has come to my attention by way of an American Indian associate of mine in Northern California that there is a question concerning the destruction of old growth Redwoods in the Richardson Grove area .
I am presently visiting American Indian communities around the Nation with the intention of coordinating actions related to various other attempts on the part of private or/and public entities to encroach on or destroy natural environments which we in the American Indian community view as having a spiritual as well as a cultural importance for our People.
I am quite sure that you all are aware of the terrible genocide and exploitation that has occurred to American Indian people across this land over the past 500 years. And I am also sure that you are also aware in the particular of the massacre of the Wiyot peoples in 1860 by white settlers.
With this and more in mind, I am sure that you understand that we as Native people are very concerned when we hear that people are wanting to again destroy our lands because we never voluntarily gave up our lands but were forced to cede these lands at the point of a gun or sword. No treaties were signed by the coastal tribes of California giving up the trees, rivers, lakes etc. So basically, you and your government accordingly are an illegal body as per the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and the World Court of the Hague.
What right do you have to decide what will be done with the lands which your ancestors took illegally ?
Thank you .
Chief Thomas Dostou
Nabesse Pishum ( Tom Dostou )
Friday, March 4, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Highway Widening Thru RIchardson Grove Would Facilitate Nuclear Waste Transport!
We don't know who made this video, but think it's great. It seems accurate except for the part that says that old-growth redwoods are set to be cut INSIDE Richardson Grove State Park for the CalTrans 101 road widening project. Our understanding is that ancient trees inside Richardson Grove are not scheduled to be cut, but will have their roots EXCAVATED, CUT, and PAVED OVER. Such damage to the roots is horrendous for the life of the trees. There are some old-growth redwoods on private property adjacent to the Grove that we suspect would be CUT, if CalTrans were to do the road widening. Join us in action to make sure CalTrans can't!
~Richardson Grove Action Now
~Richardson Grove Action Now
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Blue Green Alliance Leads Array of Labor, Environmental Organizations in Opposition to Bigger Trucks
Labor Unions, National Environmental Groups Endorse McGovern, Lautenberg Bills
WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 19, 2009) The Blue Green Alliance, along with an array of labor unions and environmental organizations, said today that they oppose allowing heavier and longer trucks, including huge triple-trailer trucks, on the nation's highways. The coalition said they will work to pass a bill that would extend the "freeze" on truck size and weight to the entire National Highway System (NHS).
Joining the Blue Green Alliance in opposition to bigger trucks and in support of the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act (H.R. 1618, S. 779) are the Sierra Club, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Laborers' International Union of North America, Environment America, Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union.
"The facts are clear: heavier trucks would be dirtier and would unnecessarily contribute to air pollution and global warming," said David Foster, Executive Director of the Blue Green Alliance. "The Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act will help prevent truck weights and lengths from increasing while taking action to improve the environment and make America more energy secure."
These national labor and environmental organizations are working to debunk the arguments of major corporate interests claiming bigger trucks would mean fewer trucks on the road and reduced fuel use. The Teamsters and the Sierra Club said bigger trucks will mean greater challenges for truck drivers and motorists, more fuel squandered and more pollution and global warming emissions.
Today, laws limiting triple trailers and other so-called "longer combination vehicles" apply only to the 46,000 mile Interstate Highway system. The Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act would apply this standard to the full 160,000 mile NHS, which would save millions of gallons of fuel and billions of taxpayer dollars because limiting truck weight would reduce wear and tear on infrastructure, mainly bridges.
In addition to wrecking roads and bridges, allowing heavier and longer trucks would mean more fuel consumption and a move away from energy efficiency at a time when reducing fuel use and global warming emissions is a national imperative.
"We need to make transportation choices that cut back on fuel waste and reduce emissions, or we will all pay a steep price," said Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. "Bigger trucks would mean more fuel wasted and more global warming emissions at a time when all Americans are realizing we need to go in the exact opposite direction. "
"This is about highway safety and protecting our environment," said James P. Hoffa, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. "Teamsters are the safest drivers on the road and know the risks of bigger trucks. Heavier or longer trucks are harder to handle, putting lives at risk, damaging the highway infrastructure and consuming more fuel."
Read the letter signed by labor and environmental groups supporting SHIPA or visit http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/.
The Blue Green Alliance is a national partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations dedicated to expanding the number and quality of jobs in the green economy. Launched in 2006, the Blue Green Alliance now unites more than six million people in pursuit of good jobs, a clean environment and a green economy.
Groups organize against bigger trucks
An alliance of labor and environmental groups is campaigning for a bill that would freeze truck size and weight on the National Highway System.
The Blue Green Alliance is comprised of the Sierra Club, Teamsters union, Natural Resources Defense Council, Laborers’ International Union of North America, Environment America, Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union.
They support the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, or H.R. 1618 and S. 779. The House bill was referred to committee March 20 and has 91 co-sponsors and the Senate bill was referred to committee April 1 and has 3 co-sponsors.
The alliance and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association support the current limit of 80,000 pounds and 53-foot limits for tractor-trailer rigs on interstate highways of the National Highway System.
The NHS covers about 160,000 miles of highway, while interstates represent 44,000 miles.
The American Trucking Associations, the National Private Truck Council and some shipping organizations favor expanding these limits. They support the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009, or H.R. 1799, which was referred to committee March 30 and has 26 co-sponsors.
That legislation would allow trucks a maximum gross weight of 97,000 pounds, provided the vehicle has at least six axles, including a tridem axle group with a weight limit of 51,000 pounds. Axle weight increases of up to 2,000 pounds would be authorized at the state's option.
The Truck Safety Coalition also formed StopBiggerTrucks.org to battle against relaxing current limits. That coalition is comprised of Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways and Parents Against Tired Truckers.
More information on the alliance is available at www.bluegreenalliance.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
