AUDIO:

The following is a rough machine transcript. Click the words to skip to that point in the audio.

TOM WHEELER:

Welcome to the Econews Report. I'm your host this week and also the guest, Tom Wheeler, Executive Director of EPIC. And here to interrogate me about the Richardson Grove Project is my friend and colleague, Jen Kalt, Executive Director of Humboldt Waterkeeper. Hey, Jen. I almost said Baykeeper. I've gotten so good at saying Waterkeeper, but I was close. You could hear the pause.

So we're going to do things a little bit different. I'm often the person asking the questions. And now today, I'm going to be the one answering the questions. So we're talking about the Richardson Grove Project. So fire away, Jen. Try to stump the chump here.

JEN KALT:

All right, well, I'm the perfect person to ask questions because I have not paid a lot of close attention to this project in a long time. Although I did see that it was in the news recently. So I do understand why we're doing the show right now. So why don't you start off by talking about what is the Richardson Grove project? And it's not even called that it's called the Improvement Project.

WHEELER:

I think just as a simple way of talking about it, I've always called it the Richardson Grove Project. So, the Richardson Grove Project, and I will try to steel man the project or provide a neutral description of the project here. The road through Richardson Grove State Park, Highway 101, is pretty sinuous. That road prism as it exists makes it difficult for very long trucks to be able to travel through. If trucks try to navigate that road, they are prone to off-tracking. They will go over the white fog lines or over the double yellow middle line in an attempt to try to stay on the road.

As a consequence of this, Caltrans has limited who can use the road. The largest category of trucks that are permitted on our freeways are called STAA trucks. These trucks are slightly less mobile than regular trucks because of their length. So, Caltrans has proposed to realign Highway 101 through Richardson Grove State Park to make the turn radii different. In some cases, I think it's going to be a straightening effect. In some cases, it's actually going to be making it more curvy in some respect, but a curve that will be better able to be navigated by a larger truck. I am trying to, in all of this, provide a neutral definition, as I said, of the project because in the past when EPIC have said, oh yeah, it's a road straightening project or something like that, Caltrans will say, well no, in fact, it's not, we're going to add pavement over here, we're going to take out pavement over here, the net effect is blah blah blah.

But effectively, this is a project to allow larger trucks to be able to safely use the road. And to do so is going to require new pavement in some areas and the removal of pavement in other areas. That new pavement is going to impact the root system of trees in the state park. It's also going to require the removal of some smaller trees. So anyone who's been through Richardson Grove State Park knows that there are giant old-growth trees that line the road. And so we are going to -- we, Caltrans -- would cut into the root system of over 100 old-growth trees in the state park and the effect of that cutting and paving over of the roots has been the issue of debate between environmentalists and Caltrans.

KALT:

So they're not proposing to cut down any of the old-growth trees.

WHEELER:

That's correct

KALT:

They're proposing to cut into their roots, which are fairly shallow, and put pavement over them, which would damage the trees.

WHEELER:

Yeah, exactly right. So there will be some cutting of trees, but these are going to be smaller diameter trees, relatively new growth. Some trees have already been cut by Caltrans as part of this project. Caltrans has begun some preparatory work for the project, but yeah, we're not going to, Caltrans is not going to cut down any old-growth trees, but it is EPIC's position that by cutting into the root system and paving over the root system of these old-growth redwood trees, we are going to negatively affect the tree such that we are going to shorten the lifespan of these trees and can cause significant dieback in the canopy of the trees. We might see the dead tops of trees that you will see in Humboldt Redwood State Park -- and more on that maybe later in the show -- and affect the vigor and the ability to put on new biomass for these old-growth redwood trees. For some trees, especially trees that are already leaning, cutting into the roots, it's going to affect the structural integrity of the trees and could heighten the risk that they topple in a storm.

So in total, what we believe are significant impacts to old-growth redwood trees from this work, Caltrans denies that these effects are likely and therefore denies that the project would produce any sort of significant impact.

KALT:

And this is in a state park.

WHEELER:

This is a state park.

KALT:

We're not talking about cutting down trees or damaging trees on industrial timberlands, for example. It's a state park and a very iconic stretch of highway where people coming from the South see these old-growth redwood trees right next to the road. Really kind of for the first time you see those big, big old trees from your vehicle as you're going down the highway.

WHEELER:

I think of it as the welcome to Humboldt. Humboldt County starts a little bit before Richardson Grove when you're heading north on the 101, but it is the entrance portal to what I think is a very precious and wonderful area.

KALT:

Maybe we need one of those signs across an archway that says, Welcome to Humboldt.

WHEELER:

Yeah, flashing neon, right? That is exactly what we need. Yeah.

KALT:

With strobe lights? Yeah. Okay. So I know this project has been going on for a very long time and has ricocheted through the court system many times. And I've lost track of all of that. How long has it been going on for? When did they first propose this project?

WHEELER:

The first public meetings on this project were in 2007. So it's been 19 years that Caltrans has been advancing it in earnest. The first project decision was in 2010. EPIC filed both state and federal lawsuits and ultimately won both of those lawsuits, which caused Caltrans to pull back the project. They attempted to reissue documents again in 2014, were spooked seemingly by some legal efforts from EPIC, and then ultimately this most recent iteration of the project was approved in 2017. They came back one last time, reissued the project. We again filed state and federal lawsuits. We initially won again, both in federal and state court. The federal case was ultimately overturned at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I would say by two Trump-appointed judges and one Bush-appointed judge. So it wasn't a great panel.

And we won at the Humboldt County Superior Court. The Humboldt County Superior Court found that Caltrans had made significant modifications to the project and had not allowed the public another opportunity for public comment, so forced Caltrans to have another public comment period. We submitted new public comments. Caltrans ignored those again and approved the project again in 2021 or 2022 or so. And we lost at the Humboldt County Superior Court and we had our path closed in federal court by the Ninth Circuit. So now we are appealing the Humboldt County Superior Court case.

So we are in state appellate court. Caltrans's work seems to be done. So Caltrans earlier this year started doing preparatory work for more concerted project work like concrete, lane of pavement. And it seems that Caltrans is trying to get ahead of the appellate court in a way to somewhat moot the case, to get all the project activities that might be complained about done before it could be heard. But thankfully, we have alerted the court to this and it seems that we will have an oral argument in the next couple months. So hopefully we'll be able to actually have this case heard before the damage is done.

KALT:

I haven't been down there in quite a while, I guess. I haven't seen any of this work. I mean, if someone's driving through there, or bicycling through there, what would they see? Have they cut any trees down?

WHEELER:

They have cut a number of trees down. These were small diameter trees. I think the largest tree they cut down was 20 inches diameter at breast height. Their dumps are pretty low to the ground, so they're not immediately visible. The effect of the project is going to be moving the road in some directions, five-ish feet to one side, taking it away five feet from the other or so. In total, there will be a net increase in the amount of pavement in Richardson Grove State Park, and so the immediate character of the project is going to change the park to some degree.

I think it's the long-term impacts to the old-growth that are going to be at issue. It might take a while. Caltrans has previously done work amongst old-growth redwoods before. Highway 101 used to be the Avenue of the Giants, and it was rerouted through Humboldt Redwood State Park, and we saw impacts from that.

So if you're driving through Humboldt Redwood State Park, one thing that's noticeable from the road is the number of dead tops on the old-growth as you drive through the park. That's always something that I notice. You kind of wonder what the heck is going on. In 2020, a student, a master's student from Utah State University, Cody Dangerfield, did his master's thesis on this road construction. He did core tree samples and also looked at LIDAR in the park and saw that areas that were adjacent to road construction saw significantly higher rates of tree fall, saw higher rates of dead tops in trees, and through looking at core samples of the trees, also saw that the growth rings were tighter, suggesting that there was some degree of stress or impairment of the trees.

I raise this Dangerfield study as important because Caltrans never considered this study. Instead, what Caltrans has done is they've looked at anecdotal reports from the 1960s where forestry professors from Cal Poly Humboldt went down to the new highway going through Humboldt Redwood State Park and looked around and said, well, everything looks fine. The trees seem vigorous, and this is because redwood trees are just such a remarkable tree that they're able to withstand impacts to their root system without producing negative impacts. Astounding. It took time for treetops to die for the effect of road construction to become apparent. And I think that that is here to what is going to happen is that we will see some short-term foliage dieback, but ultimately, the damage is going to be done in shortening the lifespan of trees that can live for thousands of years.

That's going to be by increasing the rate at which they will fall over in a windstorm because we've taken out roots that are important for their structural integrity. Old-growth redwood trees don't just die of old age, they fall over. That's how they die. And we're going to shorten the lifespan of these trees by weakening them and causing them to topple over more readily. And by creating more stress, we will cause visual dieback of the canopy.

KALT:

Well, it makes sense that the trees wouldn't show stress response or any kind of damage in a very short amount of time given how old they are. So how who gets to decide which science like if you say here's science from the 1960s? Well, we know there was a lot of science that was done in the 1960s that has been overturned. Why would someone ignore more recent science to say, Oh, well, what they did in the 19660s was fine? And who gets to decide?

WHEELER:

So I think that this requires a bit on CEQA and NEPA, our two laws here. So CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act and NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, both come into play here. Both laws don't require government decision makers to make good decisions. Primarily, they require them to adequately analyze the likely environmental impacts from the project. And hopefully from that process, by airing the impacts to the public, we will result in better decisions, but they're not required. So they're a look before you leap type laws.

Here, I think that Caltrans could get a project forward by accurately and honestly admitting what I think are going to be the impacts of the project, that it is going to significantly impact a number of old-growth redwood trees in a state park that many people hold dear. I don't believe that Caltrans wants to or is willing to admit that because then I think it would jeopardize their ability to do the project. If Caltrans admits that they're going to impact old-growth in this manner, it could impact the ability of the agency to get it funded from the Transportation Commission. It could impact the ability for it to have positive local reception at the Board of Supervisors or the Chamber of Commerce or wherever else the social license necessary to complete a project like this would disappear. Caltrans has, to this point, refused, in our view, to admit what is likely the consequence.

Who decides what science to listen to is a little bit of a tricky question. Caltrans is the one who, in one sense, decides what science to listen to, but they need to convince a judge, if litigated, that they have not ignored other science or that their interpretation of the science is just and sound and not arbitrary and capricious. And I think the scoreboard, generally, on these projects has been that judges have not bought what Caltrans has attempted to sell them. I think that there is a degree to which Caltrans is hoping that judges will, that they'll get a different draw of judges in future lawsuits that will be more amenable, more deferential to their interpretation of the science, that there will be just general judicial exhaustion, that this has gone through so many court cases and whatever else that they will just be able to get through their conclusion that they want, that they politically must have, which is that this project is not going to impact old-growth.

And maybe that is true. And maybe they will be able to move forward on this project. But I think that even if that is the consequence, which is not clear yet at this moment, I think that opposing this project has been good because I think it has changed the way that Caltrans operates.

KALT:

Yeah, I mean, a pretty stark example of that is the Last Chance Grade Project. I don't know if you want to talk about that, but in that project up in Del Norte County, Caltrans is proposing to cut some old-growth redwood trees and other Sitka spruce and Douglas fir trees, and there hasn't really been a huge outcry. There haven't been any lawsuits that I'm aware of.

WHEELER:

Yeah, there haven't. And I think that we can see the benefit of the Richardson Grove Project and the Last Chance Grade Project, where Caltrans has been much more careful to document the existing background environmental issues at play, as well as their predictions on potential environmental impacts. They've also had a better sort of public inclusion of stakeholders in the development and design of that project, in such a way that it has reduced significantly the likelihood that that project will be litigated. I don't know if it's out of the woods yet, so to speak, but it has, I think, done a good job of reducing risk.

And in reducing risk, I think it has expedited the delivery timeline for that project. EPIC has stalled the Richardson Grove Project now for 19 years. I think that Caltrans rightfully recognized that they couldn't risk a similar stall of that project for 19 years or for any period of time. And so EPIC has participated in a lot of early planning discussions with the agency. And I will attest that Caltrans has done a good job of eliminating alternatives that were overly impactful and that the alternatives left on the table. It's a draw on what is the environmentally superior alternative. Caltrans is going with a tunnel, which is going to impact more old-growth redwoods than the other alternative, but the other alternative would have impacted old-growth Sitka spruce, which is almost more rare in our region than old-growth redwoods. So again, Caltrans appears to have learned a lesson from this project, and hopefully it's all worth it.

KALT:

Well, in the Last Chance Grade Project is so much more obviously important to people of the region. If the landslide blocks the road, people can't get through, kids can't get to school, so on and so forth, I'd say it's a lot less apparent to the average person what the importance of the Richardson Grove Project is.

WHEELER:

Yeah, so let me go back in time to 2007 when the Richardson Grove project was proposed. At that point in time, there was only one way for these larger category of trucks to come into Humboldt County, and that was down the Oregon coast through Highway 101 crossing the California-Oregon border and into Humboldt County that way. Since the Richardson Grove project has been proposed, at least one other road project has been completed that now allows for SDAA trucks on Highway 299. There is another project that is about to begin construction on Highways 197, 199 in Del Norte County, which will also now allow for SDAA trucks to come in from that way. And so if there was once a need for the Richardson Grove project in 2007, if the lack of SDAA trucks into and out of our community was a significant barrier, was increasing the cost of transport, the cost of doing business in the county, the need has certainly been lessened by these other projects.

Maybe it hasn't been completely removed, but it has been lessened, and now I think that there should be a reconsideration of whether the impacts of the Richardson Grove project are outweighed in the minds of the community by the potential benefit to have these larger category of trucks come into the community. Let's call a vote. Let's call a vote. Yeah. So on the trucks, one thing I also want to make clear is that this isn't necessarily going to make things cheaper to transport in and out. These SDAA trucks can come in a couple of different forms. They can have a longer trailer in which a single truck could carry more, although they're always going to be weight restricted, so that's going to continue to be an issue. But for the most part, it seems that the longer category of trucks has to do with the new sort of trend in trucks to have the sleeper cab attached to the truck for the longer distance haul, in which case it is an SDAA truck. It has a bad turn radius because the kingpin to rear axle ratio of the truck is affected by that longer cab.

So for the most part, I don't think that we're going to see an improved hauling capacity into the county. It might logistically free up more long distance trucks to be able to come into the county. Historically, what we would see is a lot of cross docking, where a truck that would not be able to go through Richardson Grove State Park might stop in Santa Rosa and put things to be delivered in Humboldt County onto a California legal truck, a compliant truck to go through Richardson Grove State Park.

So all this is to say is I think that there is a pretty marginal economic benefit to the project, and one that's been significantly overhyped by Caltrans in time. I would say that Caltrans, to me, it seems like they're continuing to push this project because it is a statement that they as an agency aren't going to be pushed around by some pipsqueak environmental groups, that they won't back down, that this is culturally important to that agency.

KALT:

And the trucks hauling live cattle, if I recall, they would always get an exemption to go through there. Is that still the case where they're getting granted exemption so they go through there?

WHEELER:

Yeah, so part of the kind of original economic push was the Cattlemen's Association up here wanted to be able to ship cattle out of the county and were facing a restriction at Richardson Grove State Park. The California legislature has exempted those trucks, even though they are over length and could have the same issues, from the normal prohibition of Richardson Grove State Park. The California Highway Patrol a number of years ago did a report in which they found that no accidents have occurred as a result of this exemption and that no trucks have ever had the kind of problem that Caltrans anticipates, where two trucks going in opposite directions might both cross that double yellow line and result in a crash. That hasn't occurred.

EPIC has, PRA, Public Record Act, requested all of the crash data in Richardson Grove State Park. And generally what we're seeing is that it is folks who are distracted looking at the trees drive off the road a bit. And that is what crashes typically look like in Richardson Grove State Park. So I think it's a fairly thin, in EPIC's view, it's a fairly thin reason to risk these ancient redwood trees.

KALT:

You have to wonder if Caltrans would propose such a project today, all these almost 20 years later.

WHEELER:

I don't think so. I think that Caltrans as an agency has seen a significant evolution since I've been here at EPIC, which has been about a decade. Now Caltrans is focusing rightfully more on safety concerns on Highway 101 through Eureka. I know my friends at the Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities have petitioned to Caltrans out right now, which you can find at transportationpriorities.org, where it asks Caltrans to do even more work on 4th and 5th streets, that these are still a hotspot for pedestrian collisions. And sadly, I know just last Friday, an 83-year-old man was killed in a crosswalk on Highway 101 in Eureka, was hit by an RV making a left-hand turn. So I don't want to appear crass. I don't want to be crass, not even just appear crass. I think that this is a higher priority for me is I wish that the agency would do more to address safety risks, particularly for the most vulnerable road users than to try to increase truck capacity through Richardson Grove State Park or increase speed for other motorists.

To me, the priority of the agency should change. And thankfully, I think that there has been a very significant shift at Caltrans in the last decade and that there has been progress made to change the priorities of the agency.

KALT:

Well and that makes me wonder is Caltrans planning any improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians through Richardson Grove because this is part of the Pacific bike route on Highway 101. No no proposed bike lanes.

WHEELER:

So one of the things that happens with a finding of significant impacts under CEQA is an obligation to mitigate those impacts. At last chance grade, Caltrans admits, by contrast, that there's going to be a significant impact. And accordingly, the mitigation budget for that project is going to be huge. There's going to be a ton of money put into redwood restoration, land back, a variety of things are still on the table. That's fantastic. I think one of the issues of Richardson Grove in another way is that by failing to admit that there's going to be any significant impact, the agency then escapes their obligation to engage in compensatory mitigation. So there's no improvements for bicyclists, except if you can find that the road improvements that are in the project are an improvement for bicyclists, which I don't think there are.

One thing that Caltrans has said is that, well, you enviros, you complain about us putting down pavement. If we were to have an alternate bike route through the park, that would be putting down pavement over the roots of old-growth redwood trees. So like, ha ha, you've been hoisted by your own petard, you dummies. All right, cool. You've really owned the libs on that one.

KALT:

Well, and I can't resist pointing out the Last Chance Grade project is also in the coastal zone, so it is subject to the Coastal Act, and the Coastal Commission has been weighing in on that project, and this is not the case for Richardson Grove.

WHEELER:

Absolutely, and the Coastal Commission, I think, is one of the most effective California regulatory agencies, probably the most effective California regulatory agency. And here, unfortunately, I feel like we've seen other agencies like state parks not adequately defend their own interests at Richardson Grove State Park. And I get why they have to have a relationship with Caltrans that is working. And if they were to try to elevate opposition to a project like this, it would affect their relationship and their ability to get things done and blah, blah, blah. But I think it sucks. It sucks that Caltrans is going to condemn state parkland to build a highway for bigger trucks. And unfortunately, I think that that is time, but that's maybe a nice place to leave it.

And I want to welcome anybody else who has any questions about the Richardson Grove project. Please email me, tom at wildcalifornia.org. I'm happy to answer any questions folks might have. I often see in the comment section of places like the Lost Coast Outposts, where this episode will be posted, a lot of misinformation, a lot of kind of lack of understanding of why this project is being litigated, what the project is even being proposed. So I hope that this has answered a number of your questions. And Jen, thank you for being my interrogator.

KALT:

My pleasure, anytime.

WHEELER:

All right. This has been another episode of the Econews Report. Join us next week for more environmental news from the north coast of California.