Deborah
Harmon
Senior
Environmental Planner
CA
Department of Transportation
Dear
Ms. Harmon,
One of the main purposes stated for the
proposed project at Richardson Grove, stated on page i of the Summary at the
beginning of the DEIR is to “improve the safety” of
Route 101. Again on page 1,
Chapter 1, Proposed Project, there is reference to help vehicles “travel safely
through Richardson Grove”, and on page 8 it is stated again that “realignment
improvements would also improve safety for other large vehicles”.
To state a purpose, already popular with
the public, such as safety, is a good idea, at least public-relations-wise,
however to be inconsistent in the DEIR, about that same purpose, is not so
good. I am referring to the
disconcerting discrepancies on pages i, 1, and 8, that state that “improved
safety” is promised as part of the purpose and design of the project.
Yet on page 9 of the same document, it is
established by the DEIR itself that the two major causes of collision in the
proposed project area are: (1) “fixed
objects” (giant Redwood trees), and (2) “driver distraction” (people gawking at
“fixed objects/trees”). The DEIR then
goes on to report that these two major causes of collision, “fixed objects” and “driver distraction”, the primary causes of collision,
will not be addressed by this
project. In other words, the project
that promises improved safety will not be able to address the two top causes of
collision, because giant trees will not
be moved by the project, nor will the motorists be stopped from looking. Hence, collision rates, which are directly
attributed to these two top causes, will not be affected by the project. The two top safety concerns will not be
addressed. So, we are left with a
project that promises, three times in the first few pages, to improve safety,
and then turns right around in the next few pages and admits there is nothing
that can be done by the project to address the two top safety issues.
Thus begins the confusion that only
continues to deepen with further inspection of almost every category of the
DEIR.
I am concerned with many of the weaknesses
of this flawed document, which not only starts, but finishes with
contradiction, discrepancy, and inconsistency.
I am hoping that this is incidental and not deliberate. At very best, the DEIR is a shallow treatment
of a very important area and does not even begin to give
I am deeply concerned by the lack of
substantiation behind the conclusion (Sec.2.1.2 Growth) that the project is not
growth inducing. Common sense tells us that removing the natural constraint at
Richardson Grove will most definitely increase the volume of big trucks and
encourage more development in the county at a pace not commensurate with county
planning and infrastructure needs. We
have seen it happen in many other counties, and the D.E.I.R. itself says the
lifting of the restraints will boost the economy, but, of course, on the same
page, in almost the same breath, it also claims no impact. How can one have growth and no-growth at the
same time? Contradictory claims are
made here in this section of the D.E.I.R. that can only be resolved with a
closer look at Dr. Gallo’s report, which is not included in the DEIR.
So, without being able to see the
specific studies of the Gallo report, only the generalities and assumptions of Sec.2.1.2., and
because of time constraints, I will restrict my specific comments to the
Chapter that concerns me the most, Chapter 2 on Biological Concerns.
This section is loaded with
conclusions that are unsubstantiated with any real science or serious recent
on-site studies of species listed. It
relies primarily on an incomplete biodiversity data base, and gives a shallow,
precursory treatment, unworthy of the species that are state and federally
listed in this area. To complete my
dissatisfaction, the area of the DEIR intended to address Cumulative Impacts,
(perhaps the most important section of all) on all of these species is
strangely almost non-existent. I see no
real analysis of the impacts from the entire identified assessment area, which is
at least three counties wide, from Del Norte in the north to Mendocino in the
south. In order to determine the true
cumulative impact of construction on the listed species, all of the CalTrans road projects need to be looked at
in that entire assessment area, not only those that are current but also those
that are planned for the reasonably foreseeable future. I do not find that serious treatment in this
document. Confusion Hill is listed, but
not in depth, and no mention is made of the many other projects on other
roadways in the three counties, nor what the cumulative impacts of all this
work is on the critical habit of listed species.
With its preference for the Negative Dec,
CalTrans has been reluctant from the beginning to give a proper look at the
possible effect its proposed project might have on these public lands, and it
is evident that this unwillingness has continued through the entire preparation
of this document. The initial attempt by
CalTrans was to get by on a Negative Dec, and now it appears that just enough
work was done to “get by” in this DEIR, but certainly not enough to give the
serious thought to the consequences of disruption of the State Park. This document is insufficient, and a very
disappointing performance on the part of CalTrans.
Please include this letter, and my
detailed comments that follow, to the record of public response to the DEIR on
Richardson Grove proposed project. As a
concerned citizen, I request that you adopt the no-build option and lower the
speed limit to 25 miles per hour to allow the trucks a safer passage through
the Grove.
Sincerely,
Glenda Hesseltine
915 Madrone
707
268-3936
Questions and Comments
On
The D.E.I.R for Richardson
Grove
Chapter 2.3 Biological
Environment
Sec.
2.3.1. NATURAL COMMUNITIES (pg. 79 DEIR)
Question: Is it
a “natural community” when trucks, businessmen’s profit margins, and
stock-hauling have more power and
right to be there, in this State Park, than the trees, plants, and animals that give us so much comfort, joy,
inspiration, and peace in these troubled times?
Questions: By
what criteria can CalTrans justify disturbance of a “natural community” in a
Park that belongs to all the people
of the entire State of
Questions: As
such, is it to be carved up for “improved” transportation of goods for the
personal benefit of a certain segment of the northern
Questions: How
does disturbance of this public trust benefit
for northern
Question: How is this then a “natural
community” rather than an improved commerce lane?
Questions: What is top priority in
protecting this “natural community”? Faster and bigger trucks?
How does that priority, “business first”, preserve the “natural
community” listed in paragraph 2.3.1., page 79 of the D.E.I.R? Since when do private business interests
dictate policy in a State Park? Please do answer how private business gets the
privilege, regarding cutting trees, disturbing wildlife, moving earth, damaging
root systems, and degrading streambed, simply to improve their own profit
margins and economic well-being. This
project is obviously flawed from the outset with an inappropriate attention to wrong priorities for a public trust
held land. Private interests should not
prevail here, if this is indeed a
“natural community”.
Since the
CalTrans project is visiting some “adverse impacts” (pg.83 of the DEIR) on public-owned land, then
what are the obvious advantages to the residents of the whole state,
particularly those south of Humboldt County, that counterbalance the disruption
of the “natural community” of the park.
When bigger trucks are top
priority in changes being made, it must be assumed that something other than
the natural community is more important.
Questions: How can you justify that importance to all the people of the State of
This DEIR is
deficient in attending to the question of “private business vs. public trust”
as registered in public comment at both the September 2007 Benbow meeting,
and at the December 15, 2008 meeting at
Riverlodge in Fortuna. These questions were posed
informally, verbally, and in written form, formally, but still remain
unaddressed and unanswered here.
Question: Why then is there no attention to this subject in this DEIR? If there is disturbance of a “natural
community” as deeply as indicated in this document, for the benefit of a portion of the people, then there had
better be a clear reason why the disturbance benefits all the people of the State.
The DEIR is woefully inadequate in addressing this question of concern
of appropriateness of the project designed for private gain via changes to a
public trust land.
Question: Where is the discussion in the DEIR of how to have a “natural community”
stay natural when the top priority is commerce? This “business enhancement” priority of the
CalTrans project is in direct violation of the actual purpose of the Park,
which is to preserve “natural community” at Richardson Grove. No personal business interest should be able
to move that resolve.
Sec.2.3.1. Affected
Environment (pg. 79 DEIR)
There are obvious discrepancies in this section in
comparison to other sections of the DEIR, as follows:
On page ii of the Summary at the front of the DEIR,
it is said that “several Douglas fir
trees” are proposed to be removed.
On page 80 it says the “30% of the trees to be removed consist of Douglas fir”.
On page 81 the quantity is actually shown to be 27 Douglas fir.
On page 19 of
Chapter 4 Project Impacts, it says an “abundance of Douglas fir” will be removed.
Questions: Which is it? Several? Twenty-seven? Or an abundance of
Douglas fir?
This is very sloppy work, leading to a doubt in the
reader’s mind as to the accuracy and care in the count of all
the trees to be removed, in general, and including the treasured redwoods. If there is uncertainly regarding the Douglas
Firs, perhaps there is uncertainly regarding the redwoods also.
Question: Will
this sloppiness in description of the firs extend to the treatment of the
redwoods? If we don’t know for sure
if there will be “several”, “27”, or “an abundance” of firs cut, how do we know that there will be only 2
smaller redwoods cut?
Apparently there is confusion by staff on how much
will actually be cut in the project, or else the DEIR is in conflict with itself on this topic.
Questions: Why are there discrepancies of this nature in the DEIR? Will they be corrected?
These types of discrepancies, though small, point to
something much bigger. They indicate careless work and, indeed, undermine
confidence in the document and, ultimately, in the ill-conceived project.
Question: If the
DEIR is this careless, will the proposed project also be this careless? If there
is not correct attention in the DEIR, in the planning stages and assessments,
how will there be correct attention on site, during construction?
Sec. 2.3.1. Environmental
Consequences (pg. 80 DEIR)
Table
8 Trees That Might Be Removed Within the Project Area
1. “as construction of the
retaining wall occurs, it may be possible to “preserve additional trees.”
(Pg. 81 DEIR)
Question: How many trees will be preserved if no wall is built? This statement in the DEIR
misleads reader to think CalTrans project is interested in preserving trees,
when actually best preservation is no-build.
Cutting the retaining wall is not the
best preservation of trees even if
some are “saved” above the wall. This is
misleading language.
Question: How do you plan to describe the proposed project without misleading the
public to think you are “preserving” trees?
2. “In
addition to the tree removal itself, construction activities could result in
other impacts to trees, both long term
and short….including placement of impervious material, placement of fill over
the roots, changing drainage patterns, and compaction. Short term impacts from construction can
affect tree roots from such activities as soil disturbance, excavation, compaction,
cutting roots; and exposure to fuel and oils from leaking equipment.” (pg. 83, DEIR).
Question: Who, and how many, will monitor
all these impacts and proposed mitigations?
There
will need to be more than one person for the size and scope of the project, with
activities spread over more than one mile. A team of qualified experts will
have to be on site at all times to monitor this many potential adverse affects
and make sure all promised mitigations will be done in this highly sensitive
area on this very controversial project.
These are serious impacts, the mitigation of which is doubtful in the
mind of many of the citizens.
Questions: Who will
guarantee that there will be careful monitoring? What biological experts do the
monitors report into and what is the system designed and set in place for that
procedure? Contractors cannot serve as
their own monitors.
Questions: What are the consequences and what is the procedure for failure to
monitor closely? The DEIR itself is shallow,
and carelessly done with many discrepancies. Who will insure that the monitoring will not also be shallow and
careless? Who will insure that the
monitoring of these potential adverse impacts will be constant and
impeccable? How many are currently
planned to be on this team. Who are
they? What are their qualifications? How
many hours will they be on site? Do the
monitoring hours correspond with the construction activity schedule? Will this monitoring be given the same
careless treatment that sections of the DEIR are given? We cannot afford mistakes in trees that
will not grow back to this size for another 1000 years.
Questions: What is the plan of action if
the monitor finds a violation? Will
there be fines? Action? More mitigation of the
violation? Simply installing a monitor,
even a good one, or even a team of monitors, is not, in itself, a mitigation. In order to constitute a true mitigation
measure, there must be further provisions and plans for actual action and
consequences, and instructions for what the monitor is required to do, if the monitor does indeed witnesses
violation.
Questions: What will be the enforcement by the monitor should there be
violations?
Will the
monitor simply write up a report of a violation, or will he intervene? What will be the consequence to the
violation? Restoration? In-kind mitigation?
How do you put severed roots back? (This is assuming that you have a large enough
monitor task force to be everywhere during construction.)
3. Root Disturbance.
(Pg. 83, DEIR)
“Of most concern is construction activity that
occurs within the structural root zone of the trees for both long term and
short term impacts…..There would be construction activities that occur within
the structural root zone of approximately 30 redwood trees ranging in diameter
from 18 inches to 15 feet. This zone is
where most of the nutrient and water absorption occurs. The possibility of injury to a tree resulting
from construction activities generally increases as the distance to the trunk
decreases. In addition, construction
activities occurring from the surface to three feet below ground level have
the most potential to result in impacts
to trees (Department of Parks
and Recreation, 2005). Table 9 and
Appendix L includes plans showing where construction
occurs within the structural root zone of the trees.”
Question: What will Caltrans do to guarantee the life and health of the tree
will not be ultimately compromised by cutting, even carefully, into the root
system of one of these national treasures?
As a
shallow rooted tree, with no taproot, the redwood depends on a shallow,
far-reaching network, extending out sometimes as much as 250 feet in
circumference and interlocking with the root systems of neighboring trees, to insure stability
against the forces of nature such as wind and storms. Cutting into these systems may result, over
time, in the weakening of the tree and ultimately, the loss of the tree. These trees are irreplaceable. If one goes down, you don’t replace it within
the year.
Question: How do you plan to avoid
weakening this important root system?
The roots must not be cut. What alternative can you offer?
Questions: What field
studies have you conducted to determine the effect of cutting into the
shallow-rooted system of trees as heavy and large as redwoods? How much disturbance before the tree goes
into shock, or is weakened enough to topple?
What statistical evidence justifies that cutting will not be risking the
tree?
Questions: With a root system radius ranging from 125 to
250 feet, does CalTrans respect the possible maximum 250 root radius of each
redwood tree in the project? Or are they considering the minimum quote of 125?
4. Impervious
materials over roots. (Pg. 83, DEIR.)
“an additional 0.14 acres
of roadbed material would be placed within the structural root zone area of
trees within the project limits. This
represents a nearly five percent increase in the total amount of hardened
surface (roadbed) within the structural root zone area of trees within the
project limits.”
Question: Where are the true mitigation
measures for this impact?
There is no mention of mitigation of this aspect in
Chapter 5 Mitigation and Minimization Measures. There is only a small reference
on pg. 86 that describes a substance known as CTPB to be used as pavement
rather than Hot Mix Asphalt paving. Hot or
cold paving over the roots is not a good idea for the long term benefit of
these trees. Once it hardens, it still
is paving, which changes the run-off, the absorption, etc. It is not in the best interests of the Grove
to add even an inch more paving to the root systems there. This cannot be
considered good stewardship of these trees.
Question: How come the DEIR admits (pg. 83) that “of most concern”
is the impact to the root systems by construction activity, then describes an
extra 5% increase of roadbed material or .14 of an acre, within a one mile
stretch, and yet no mention of mitigation for this direct impact of extra
acreage? This is an inadequate
treatment of the possible impacts to the root systems. It needs to be looked at as an impact, even
if it is only .14 of an acre to see if it will jeopardize even one of the
giants. It cannot be left to chance in
a grove of 1000 year old, 15 foot in diameter, world-renown treasures. These treasures are in our safe-keeping for
generations to come, and cannot be treated casually or with neglect. To fail to adequately discuss true mitigation
for the extra impervious materials or the disturbance within the structural
root zone, is to possibly risk the trees.
Question: What is the cumulative effect
of gradually adding more and more roadbed material over the roots, over the
years? How much tampering and damage can
a redwood sustain before it succumbs?
What is that point that is “too much”???
Where is this cumulative effect addressed in the DEIR? Once again, the document shows insufficient
justification for the disturbance and insufficient measures to offset any possible disturbance.
5. Fill over root flare of
stem. (Pg. 83, DEIR.)
“some trees would be
located within a fill slope and have fill placed over the roots. The biggest concern is the fill on the flare of the stem”.
Questions: How is this “biggest concern”
addressed in the Mitigations and Minimizations section of the DEIR? I do not see any mention of what will be done to
address this “biggest concern”. With
fill depths ranging to nearly four feet, and averaging one to two feet, I am
concerned about the “fill over the root flare of the stem”. What does this actually mean,
“root flare of the stem”? Where does the DEIR address this concern
specifically in terms of
adequate mitigation? Is the “brow log” considered the mitigation for the
“biggest concern” of “fill on the flare
of the stem”? It is unclear from the
present language in the DEIR as to what the actual
mitigation for this “biggest concern” about “fill over the flare of the root
stem” is. If the brow log is the “protection” for the trunk, then what is
the protection for the “flare of the root stem”? Are they two different
things, or one in the same? There
needs to be more detail and description here as to the nature and treatment of
the “flare of the root stem”. If the
public is to read this document and determine adequacy, then this document
needs to be more considerate and “public reader friendly” by defining obscure
or vague terms.
Sec.2.3.1. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Measures (pg 85, DEIR)
1. M-2: “To
offset the impacts to trees where construction occurs within the structural
root zone, mitigation will be provided to increase the amount of invasive plant
removal. A contract with the California
Conservation Corps will be established to provide 300 hours a year for four
years (three days each year for four years.)”
Question: How does slightly increasing the removal of “invasive plant material (3 days once a year for 4 years is not much), in other words some minor “weeding”, help mitigate/minimize
the impact of soil compaction and
cutting of roots, and other construction activity close to the roots of the
redwoods? This out-kind mitigation is not an adequate measure to “offset the impact to the
trees where construction occurs within the structural root zone”.(pg. 85,
DEIR) Removing invasive plant species,
i.e., weeds, for 3 days a year for 4
years is hardly a credible plan for protection of the root systems during
construction activities, particularly of the redwoods involved.
Question: Please explain how this minor, “weeding”, out-of-kind mitigation plan
balances against the much more serious negative impact of root disturbance of
the shallow-rooted redwood and the possible disease and death of the tree? This is insufficient and inappropriate mitigation.
Question: What is your real plan for protection of the root
systems, (and in turn the entire tree) from impacts of invasive construction
activity…..activity, in fact, in which
some of the roots will be cut (pg. 86 DEIR), ostensibly jeopardizing the life
of tree itself? We cannot gamble with these
trees and substitute the “removal of invasive plants” for the true protection
of the root systems that is needed if the trees are to thrive for generations.
2. “Avoidance
and minimization measures will be implemented for work in the park” (pg. 86, DEIR.)
First it is stated that “all excavation below finish
grade within a setback equal to three times the diameter of any redwood trees
shall be done by hand”, giving, at
first, the impression that great care will be taken.
A paragraph later it states
that the work will be done “with shovels, pick
axes, or other non-mechanized
methods” indicating a little less care, in that great damage can be done with a pick axe or a shovel and a careless
boot.
A third paragraph states that “the contractor will
be required to use an air spade
while excavating soil”.
Questions: Is an “air spade”
mechanical? If so, how will that be used
and still abide by the proposed mitigation of “non-mechanical” and “excavation by hand”? Will the “excavation
work done below the finish grade within a setback equal to 3 times the diameter
of any redwood tree” truly be
“done by hand”, conjuring the picture of a worker on hands & knees
carefully excavating around shallow roots, or is this just lip-service, and it
will be boot and shovel, not so carefully applied, with potential for
greater damage?
There seem to be discrepancies in this section as to
whether it will be by hand spade, by shovel, or by air-spade. Best way to protect the roots is to leave
them alone. Insufficient
justification that you will be protecting the roots by “hand-work” compared to
superior protection of a “No-build” option. Leaving the roots completely alone is the
best and only true protection of this public trust forest.
Question: How many monitors will be assigned
here? One monitor for the removal of 89
trees does not seem adequate.
Question: Will the trees be worked on one
at a time so the monitor can be present and closely supervise the delicate work
needed in the structural root zone? Will
these trees be given the respect they deserve?
Contractors
are not usually arborists.
3. Brow logs
to protect redwood trunks from fill.
(Pg. 83, 87, DEIR)
“In locations where fill would be placed next to the
trunk of a redwood tree greater than three feet in diameter, a brow log shall
be used to keep the soil from the tree trunk and to increase air circulation.
Questions: What is to keep the brow log “in place” over the years? Weather, animals, people….all kinds of possibilities
exist for the accidental or deliberate removal of this “protection” which has
been artificially placed. Removal of the
brow log, years later, when no monitoring exists, could result in damage, and
maybe even death, to the tree. What guarantees permanency of a “brow log”
for the next 1000 years of a redwoods life?
Will we have monitors around forever?
Do we risk our redwoods this way?
Best protection of the tree is to allow no
extra fill over the roots or near the trunk at all with a
no-build option.
4. Additional
minimization measures utilized throughout the project limits include: (pg. 87, DEIR)
“Equipment staging areas/storage areas will be on
the paved roadway or on existing unvegetated gravel/paved pullouts so there
will be no staging in sensitive natural communities.” Pg. 87 DEIR
Questions: How
many monitors will be assigned to watch the staging areas? How many employees will the contractor have
moving how many different vehicles and pieces of machinery? Certainly one monitor cannot keep track of
the many and various pulling in and out
of multiple pieces of machinery in various locations. What
is the specific plan here? The DEIR
shows insufficient detail as to the handling of the staging areas.
5. “To avoid impacts to nesting
migratory birds, vegetation removal will occur between September 30 and March
1.”
Question: What about the Spotted Owl
nesting period which is from Feb. 1st to July 21st. Vegetation removal between Sept 30 and March
1 would possibly adversely affect the nesting pattern of the Spotted Owl by
overlapping his period which extends from Feb through March, the time of
vegetation removal.
Question: Is this an authentic oversight
on part of the DEIR preparation or simply another example of more carelessness?
This reader’s summary of this section 2.3.1. Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures:
None of the proposed implementations will be effective without a
detailed monitoring plan describing numbers of monitors, hours of supervision,
actions the monitors are expected and required to take upon discovery of
violation, consequences upon the
contractor and employees if found in violation, and restoration practices of
areas found in violation. Much more work
is needed for a credible monitoring plan.
Question: What is CalTrans intention and time
table for designing the proper monitoring plan to oversee all Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures in this section of the DEIR? There is insufficient information in this
portion of the DEIR.
Sec. 2.3.2. WETLANDS
AND OTHER WATERS
Environmental Consequences
“sediment discharge due to
culvert improvements are unavoidable” (pg. 90
DEIR).
Culvert “improvements” as listed by CalTrans, i.e.
installation of a liner and lengthening of culvert do not constitute “improvement” of water quality. At best, such action may prevent further
degradation, but the quality of water would be much improved if the disturbance
never happened in the first place. This
is misleading as a mitigation attempt.
There is no improvement here, only scant containment of their own unnecessary degrading of the water flow
quality. This appears to be a
deliberate attempt to camouflage construction disturbance of streams under the
banner of “improvement” of water quality by simply putting in liners to handle
the increased disturbance, and thereby gain public approval of the disturbance
of the stream.
Question: How can Caltrans be more
responsible in choosing language in this section of the DEIR to avoid
the false impression that water quality will be “improved” with liners and
extensions? It is obvious that if it
were not for the construction, there would be no degradation in the first
place…no need for liners and extensions..…this is not
“improving” the waters of the
Question: Why is there no mention in the DEIR that the best way to “improve”
water quality is to not mess it up in the first place? Why is there no mention that the “no-build”
option is a superior choice for preserving water quality over a culvert liner
or extension? That option needs to at
least be acknowledged in this section of the DEIR as one of the viable choices
for consideration.
Question: What are the
specific details of the monitoring plan for the close scrutiny of all the
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures of the DEIR regarding
WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS, Environmental Consequences? (pg. 89, DEIR) There is insufficient
information in this portion of the DEIR.
“The contractor will be required to develop and
implement a Water Pollution Control Plan or Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan identifying site-specific best management practices and emergency spill
controls” (pg 93, DEIR).
Question: What are some of the
specifics of such a plan and who sets the standards, the contractor or the
environmental experts? There is insufficient information in this portion of the DEIR and no
guarantee what standards will be set and how they will be met.
Sec. 2.3.3.
PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES
NOISE DISTURBANCE OF ANIMAL SPECIES:
The most glaring implausible and incongruous plan in
this section is the unimpressive promise
of “13 new garbage can lids” (pg.103) in
exchange for the project’s adverse impact of
the critical habitat of the federally and state listed endangered and
threatened species, the Marbled Murrelet.
This “garbage-can lid proposal” belongs in the garbage can. It is not a serious, nor
adequate, proposal to mitigate possible adverse affects on this species in this
proposed project. New garbage can lids
cannot protect Murrelet eggs from predator ravens and crows, if eggs can’t be laid
in the first place due to increased
construction noise and activity which possibly disrupts not only nest-building
but egg-laying.
Question: What
good will the new predator-proof garbage can lids do to reduce egg theft, if, due
to construction disturbance, there are no nests being built and no eggs
being laid? Danger to the
species cannot be blamed on the raven taking the eggs, when it is the
construction activity will first prevent the nests from being built or the eggs
from being laid and hatched.
According to page four of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Draft Guidance
document pertaining to Estimation of the Effects of Auditory and Visual
Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets, tools, machines,
and engines can have a cumulative effect when used “in concert” that places them in the Very High (91 to 100 dB)
category.
Question: What actual studies have been
done to accurately
determine the “in concert” effect of the sound from more than one
piece of machinery operating at one time?
Page 2 of the same document, the Draft Guidance,
says that “essential behaviors, if disrupted, may also indicate harassment” and
goes on to say on that same page that flush response and harassed behavior is
most likely when total sound is very
high (i.e. exceeds 82-90 dB).
Question: What studies have been done
to determine the flush response of the Spotted Owl and the Murrelet from the
total sound of more than one piece of equipment operating at one time, i.e.
trucks backing up with warning bells, jackhammers, concrete saws. We need to know the possible cumulative
effect of the total noise produced daily on the Murrelet and Spotted Owl. Their presence, until you do the study, must
be presumed.
In the same document, US Fish & Wildlife Draft
Guidance, pg. 2, it also states that “visual proximity of human activities”
during noise disturbance is an added factor in harassment.
Question: Until
you know for sure how many Spotted Owls and Murrelets are in the vicinity
via an on-site study, how can you know
what the effect of the visual proximity of the noise disturbance is?
On page 3 of the US Fish & Wildlife Draft Guidance, the category for High noise
disturbance (81-90 dB) includes “medium and large-sized construction equipment”
of the type to be used on the proposed project, and the category of Very High
includes jackhammers, which are also to be used. Page 3 also states that the “many tools and equipment demonstrate a
range of sound production substantially wider than the categories provided
here.”
Question: Since there is a distinct
possibility that the equipment will exceed the categories, what provisions has
CalTrans made for this possible variance beyond categorical averages, in
estimating the noise disturbance potential?
On page 103 of the Environmental Concerns section,
the DEIR finds that “due to the sensitivity of the species, it was determined
that the project MAY AFFECT AND IS
LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT the Marbled Murrelet.”
Noise disturbance on wildlife is an inexact science
at best, and takes specific site survey and careful study to determine the risk
in each specific area. The noise and construction activities could interfere
with nesting. It cannot be assumed that
there will be no adverse impact from the jackhammers, concrete saws, night
lighting, noise of trucks, back-up safety bells, etc. on the nesting habits of
any of the species that might be in the habitat during construction time.
Thirteen new garbage can lids, to protect Murrelet
eggs from predators such as ravens and crows will be useless if the Murrelets
never get to build their nests and lay their eggs in the first place, due to
surplus human activity in this critical habitat area.
Traffic slows considerable through this area at
night, resulting in quieter levels, and
to think that the noise level of
night-time use of jackhammers, cement trucks, concrete saws, back-up
bells, and other construction noises is comparable to the night time noise level
of reduced traffic flow and reduce human activity in the campground is
implausible..
Question: What statistics, from what
study, at the site, back up this conclusion that noise and lights will not be a
significant increase in disturbance by this proposed project in this particular
sensitive area?
On page 6 of the Draft Guidance, it is stated “the
analyst should bear in mind not only the spatial extent of the disturbance, but
also the timing and duration of the disturbance”
Question: What studies and precautions
has CalTrans taken in regards to the “spatial extent”, “timing and duration of
the disturbance”?
According to the Baseline Noise Level Study
of Forest Management Activities on the
Mt. Hood National Forest, terrain affects sound intensity.
Question: What studies has CalTrans
done to determine terrain configuration effects on noise levels during
construction?
According to page 2 of Basic Acoustics for Noise Prediction and
Evaluation, prepared by Robin Leighty, US Army Corp of Engineers Wildlife
Biologist, “noise which is relatively constant, such as vehicle traffic on a
roadway, is best described as an average, whereas intermittent or periodic
noises (construction equipment) are best characterized using a “peak” measure. It is the impulse noises which may have the greatest potential for disturbance of wildlife. It is also the type of noise to which they
would be less likely to become
acclimated.”
Question: Has CalTrans studied the
potential impact of “impulse noise” as described in the US Army Corp of
Engineers document, Basic Acoustics for Noise Prediction and Evaluation?
Question: What types of measuring
devices has CalTrans used at Richardson
Grove to determine the traffic noise
level? Was it Mobile or
Stationary Measuring Techniques?
Question: Who is going to be monitoring the sound
levels daily? How many monitors for
noise disruption is CalTrans planning to employ?
To be working with heavy equipment at night, in
addition to the already accumulated daytime noise from the traffic and
campground use, is to further stress an already stressed species, such as the
Murrelet, Spotted Owl, Pallid Bat, and Bald Eagle. Instead of the environment quieting down as
is natural at night, with the proposed project, there will be construction
activity and artificial night lighting, thereby furnishing the Murrelet (and
others) with round-the-clock disruption and confusion. Thirteen raven-proof garbage can lids are no
match for this impact.
Nesting trees, which are larger than the ones
designated to actually be cut, may also be in jeopardy in the project, in that
their roots may be compromised enough to eventually cause destruction of the
important nesting trees. Once gone, it
takes years to replace a mature tree.
Question: If roots are cut, how can the project guarantee that future nesting
trees will not be removed? What will be
the impact of the possible loss of nesting trees through root damage?
On page 103 the DEIR says “noise, lights, and
activity disturbance generated by the construction on this project may disturb
breeding and migration patterns in the project area”.
Question: What
can the project offer besides 13 garbage can lids to avoid this noise/light
disruption of breeding and migration patterns?
Question: Will the night lighting affect
the hunting of any possible Spotted Owls?
Directing
light down on the ground may discourage movement of rodents and other prey that
the owls are hunting and thereby discourage them from their natural
habitat.
Question: What type of study was done at
the site to determine that traffic and campground noise was comparable to
jackhammers, cement saws, cement mixers, back-up bells, etc. How was it
determined by the DEIR that the noise of all the various construction
activities would be no louder than the traffic and campground? Who did the on site study and when?
Question: Are the opinions put forth in the DEIR
resting on any actual recent study in the field, or are they all drawn from the
CNDDB which is itself incomplete? A controversial project
such as this, involving potential impact in an
environmentally sensitive area on public trust lands belonging to the whole
state, cannot expect to rest on an incomplete biodiversity data base when
setting standards for mitigation. There
must be fresh, pertinent, site appropriate study conducted in a timely
fashion….in other words, live data from the area.
Question: Will a
real study be done before construction starts? More data is needed in the
case of each endangered or threatened species to determine the nature and
degree of the impact of the project.
For the Bald Eagle, state listed as threatened,
according to the DEIR, there is “suitable habitat present within the project
limits” (pg. 101, DEIR) yet a statement
that all of this loud construction and disruption of the proposed project “will
not adversely affect Bald Eagles or their habitat.”
Question: Where are the recent studies
that back up the contention that jackhammer and cement mixers are no more noisy
than average campground activity?
The public should not have to prove the
obvious….that jackhammer and other
construction noise and activity is not
good for Pallid Bats, Bald Eagles,
Murrelets, Spotted Owls, and other species breeding, nesting and hunting in the
area. Rather, the project proponents
should have to conclusively prove that it is harmless. Because noise disruption is an inexact
science, we do not have this proof of harmlessness without a field study. Project proponents must prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the increased noise and activity will not adversely
affect any of these state or federally listed species.
Western Pond Turtle will also most likely be
disturbed, according to DEIR report on page 98.
“Female pond turtles could build nests in this
area.”
Questions: How was it determined that the
impact to the turtle would be “minor and temporary” (pg.98)? Was there a study of this species and the
possible effects of soil movement, truck activity, stream defilement on the
nesting activities? Or was it just an opinion?
Insufficient
data presented in DEIR to back up this opinion.
Pacific Fisher, already a shy species, will be
deterred by the increased lighting, noise and activity.
Questions: What study backs the
assertion that “the proposed project will not adversely affect the Pacific
Fisher” on page 102? Where is the data
supporting that conclusion?
On page 103 of the DEIR it is stated that a “2 year
study will be conducted in association with the State Parks to document presence
of any Marbled Murrelet in the project area.”
Question: Since the study has not been
conducted yet, how can it be determined how many Murrelet are in the area, what
the project impact is on the
bird, and what mitigations are needed?
Questions: What is the timing of the start
of project in comparison to the timing of this proposed study? If the proposed construction start date
precedes the study date, how can you justify starting without the necessary
study to determine presence and mitigation levels?
Question: Is CalTrans, or any of the
contractors for Caltrans, currently, or planning in the near future, to apply
for an incidental “take” permit?
Question: If Caltrans, or any of its
contractors, is, indeed, applying for a
take permit, how do you explain and justify your statements, repeatedly found
in the DEIR, that there will be no significant adverse impacts to species? If that is true, then why is a “take”
permit, (defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect”) needed, if, indeed, as
promised, there will be no adverse
impacts?
In addition to the admission that the project “May
Affect, and is likely to Adversely Affect” the Marbled Murrelet, the DEIR also
states on page 104 that it “May Affect and is likely to Adversely Affect” the
Northern Spotted Owl.
Question: With two admissions of likely adverse affect to threatened species
(pg104 and pg 103 DEIR), and the application of a “take” permit in process, how
can you justify the project as not harmful?
2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Of the entire DEIR, this is the area of most
concern, and yet Chapter
2, BIOLOGICAL CONCERNS, devotes a mere 2 and one-half pages, one which is simply a partial list of other CalTrans projects within a five mile radius.
The Cumulative Impacts
assessment in this DEIR is woefully deficient.
Questions: Why is CalTrans ignoring the cumulative
effect of all projects in its
assessment area which spans 3 counties?
The fatal flaw of this document is what appears to
be its piece- mealing
approach to the cumulative effects analysis.
Confusion Hill is listed on
the chart on page 108, but not the project on Hwy. 36.
If you are looking at more than just the
STAA’s project, which it
appears you are, with the inclusion of Confusion
Hill, then you must look at all the road projects within your assessment area
for
the cumulative effects on the critical habitat for
the species such as the Murrelet and the Spotted Owl, and address those
cumulative effects of all the projects CalTrans is currently engaged in,
and also those in the reasonable foreseeable future. There is no such attention to cumulative
effects in this DEIR, rendering it useless for determining proper mitigation
for these (at this point unknown) effects.
Final
Question: Where
is the disclosure of all the CalTrans road projects in the entire 3
county assessment area, both now, currently in progress, and those planned for
the foreseeable future? Omission
of a proper analysis of the true
Cumulative Effects is an inadequate
treatment of the Cumulative Effects for the proposed project.
Final
Comment: Just the presence of the many flaws, discrepancies,
and insufficiencies in Chapter Two alone, make reliance on the findings of the
DEIR difficult. If the DEIR is this
sloppy, what will the project itself be
in terms of care and quality? Why is CalTrans unwilling to consider the
public’s request of Alternative 3,
which is simply to reduce the speed
limit through the Grove to 25 miles per hour? Everyone, truckers, tourists, local
residents, and native species would benefit from the lowered speed limit. It’s economical, easy, practical, and least
damaging to the environment and the quality of life for residents of Humboldt
County. It is the best solution for
protection of a State
Park, national treasure, and world
renowned redwoods.