January 27th, 2009
Bruce Campbell
Deborah Harmon, Senior Environmental Planner
California Department of Transportation
Re: Richardson Grove Operational Improvement Project
Dear Ms. Harmon and to whom it may concern:
These are my comments on
the Draft EIR/EA and the Biological Assessment for the highway widening /
re-alignment scheme targetting the most beautiful area of the "Redwood
Highway" in the only location along its route where ancient redwood canopy
covers the majority of the highway in a one mile stretch -- in the Richardson
Grove State Park area of southern Humboldt County.
********************************************************************************************************
Here is a brief summary
of 15 very important issues which were not adequately addressed
(if at all) in the DEIR/EA (as well as Biological Assessment) for the highway
project in the Richardson Grove area:
1. MARBLED MURRELET - a
much more thorough analysis needs to occur, including consideration and
analysis of the Marbled Murrelet Conservation Zone approach to
CONSERVATION and RECOVERY of the species -- see all my points from my 6-5-08
scoping comments which were never addressed, plus clarify when this murrelet
survey will be done and whether construction is planned before the completion
of the survey;
2. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
relating to how much the highway project by Richardson Grove would promote
GROWTH and CHANGE IN COMMUNITY CHARACTER -- be sure to consider that project in
conjunction with many proposals and reasonably forseeable projects, and how
this could influence shifts in commerce and possible increase in extractive industries
in the county (such proposals and reasonably forseeable projects which should
be analyzed in this regard include the "Balloon Tract", port
development at Humboldt Bay, possible railroad revival, other developments, the
proposal seeking stimulus assistance and how much may be included in such a
federal bill, etc.) -- which businesses would likely benefit, and which most
likely would suffer(?) -- thus do not just consider the "Action Area"
and local area in cumulative impact considerations;
3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
relating to the Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Owl, Pacific Fisher, and
listed native fish species -- such an analysis must also consider how
growth in various parts of Humboldt County somewhat promoted by the proposed
project at Richardson Grove could lead to damage to habitat for these
species in other areas of the county such as marine areas, timberlands, river
beds, etc., besides impacting habitat for these species at the project
site;
4. STAA Trucks, and
the coalition actively promoting them, should be placed in a
clear LEGISLATIVE and REGULATORY CONTEXT;
5. STAA TRUCKS
-- precisely where are they allowed or not allowed in Humboldt
County at present, and if the highway project is completed at Richardson Grove,
what are your estimates for the areas where these STAA trucks would be allowed
to travel in the future, and how does the larger turning radius of these trucks
impact safety and necessitate widening of arterial roads and highway ramps in
Humboldt County(?);
6. REDWOOD TREE ROOTS --
there must be much deeper analysis of possible impacts (including
in mid and long-term) from cutting redwood tree roots, paving up
to the base of some trees, use of heavy equipment in the area, alteration
of hydrology which could impact food and nutrient sources for some trees,
impacts on MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI relating to tree root tips, etc., as well as
the uncertainties in knowledge in regards to biological study of such
alterations; (the DEIR/EA claimed that no roots greater than 2 inches would be
cut, but the BA says no redwood roots larger than 3 inches would be cut --
which is it??)
7. OPENING CANOPY and
IMPACTS to SPECIES from INCREASED EDGE and FRAGMENTATION --
this needs to be seriously addressed in future documents
because there is canopy over most of the Richardson Grove section of
highway, and opening it up would have damaging consequences, while much
more the hillside by the proposed wall would lose various levels
of canopy -- impact of climate change on a more fragmented forest should be
assessed;
8. OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE
VALUES related to federal Wild and Scenic Rivers --
though I mentioned "scenery" and "fish" (the
designated ORVs for the South Fork Eel River), these were not even
acknowledged (let alone analyzed) in the DEIR/EA or the BA;
9. HAZARDOUS
WASTE / MATERIALS -- there needs to be analysis of hazardous waste
and materials in the materials which will be used for paving and striping, for
dust suppression, for vegetation suppression, and for any other use in the
project area (merely mentioning lead in paint stripes and lead residue on
vegetation is insufficient);
10. INSUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVES
-- lowering the speed limit at
Richardson Grove as an offered alternative should take place in future
documents, but if not, it is clear that STAA access is the driving
force for the project rather than safety;
11. EFFECT on TRAVEL and BUSINESSES during CONSTRUCTION
in the Richardson Grove area;
12. IMPACT on WAGES in Humboldt County, on SMALL
BUSINESSES including TOURIST BUSINESSES, impact on wages for
truckers, and impact on businesses in Leggett and elsewhere which re-loads
some cargo from STAA trucks to smaller trucks for passage into Humboldt
County;
13. SINGING TREE
RECOVERY -- assess whether
construction noise, lights, and fumes would be detrimental to attendance (thus
impacting its income) at this alcohol and drug recovery center, and what are
the odds that the therapy would be less successful with all these nearby
disturbances;
14. STAGING, EQUIPMENT, and
DISPOSAL AREAS -- there needs to be great detail on these
matters especially if there are plans for heavy equipment parking or use
further from Highway 101 than where the re-aligned highway is to run (the
combination of "equipment staging areas", "temporary
construction easements", "disposal/barrow sites", and
"potential temporary stream diversion" sounds like there is
considerable impact from the project even if the actual tree removal and
construction did not occur -- please carefully analyze such impacts including
upon redwood roots and mycorrhizal fungi (one reason detail is needed here is
that it is very disturbing to see that despite a maximum 17 foot lateral
movement of the road under the project proposed for the Richardson Grove area,
that the so-called "action area" would could stretch a full 30-65
feet from the edge of the paved roadway to the west, and stretch about 40 feet
east of the highway);
15. LIGHTS and NOISE --
seeing that the document downplays lights involved with highway work at
night, the next documents must analyze this situation in terms of what the
number of lights would be in regards to this night-work and how many watts
would be used, and how far would the light travel -- as compared to basic
traffic headlights through the Richardson Grove area. In addition, such an analysis including
measured decibel levels should occur regarding usual highway noise as versus
additional noise used for demolition, tree removal, grinding, construction,
etc.
*******************************************************************************************************
In reviewing my scoping
comments dated 6-5-08, I note that I called for a thorough Environmental Impact
Statement in my very first paragraph. I
still call for this more thorough document because the DEIR/EA was fairly
skimpy, and we need a much more thorough analysis on a number of fronts
including on federally-related issues. A
full EIS is necessary because Highway 101 is a federal highway, pressure and
likely funding is coming from some federal sources like the Federal Highway
Administration, the project site is within a quarter mile of the South Fork Eel
River which has been designated as a National Wild and Scenic River due to its
"outstandingly remarkable values" of "scenery" and
"fish", because there are federally-listed species known to occur (or
with potential to occur) in the project area, and because Richardson Grove
State Park was designated as critical habitat for the federally-threatened
Marbled Murrelet on May 24, 1996.
In the very first
paragraph of my 6-4-08 scoping comments on this matter, I mentioned the
"outstandingly remarkable values" of "scenery" and
"fish" which were declared so that the
*********************************************************************************************************
Following re-reading
again and again everything mentioned about the Marbled Murrelet in the DEIR/EA,
Natural Environment Study, and the Biological Assessment, I reviewed my
comments dated June 5th, 2008, and discovered that in my numbered
points/questions in that scoping comment pertaining to the Marbled Murrelet,
NONE of the points/questions were addressed in the DEIR/EA !!! I now shall bunch up the murrelet
points/questions in order, and shall call them alphabet letters rather than
numbers. Thus, point 1 is now A, point 2
is now B, point 3 is now C, point 7 is now D, point 8 is now E, point 9 is now
F, and point 10 is now G. I shall put point
17 next as H, and then I shall put the somewhat murrelet-related point 4 as
point " I " in this comment on the DEIR/EA, and I shall put somewhat
murrelet-related point 14 as point "J". (In between points B and C below is a
revision of the paragraph -- for more clarity -- which I had in my scoping
comments as to when a study based on the Leslie model along with sensitivity
analysis and demographic information declared that there is 100% likelihood of
extirpation of the Marbled Murrelet from Marbled Murrelet Conservation Zones 5
and 6.)
A. Thoroughly evaluate the
impact of direct (as well as eventual or indirect) CANOPY deterioration or
REMOVAL (under the Richardson Grove proposed "re-alignment") on
MARBLED MURRELET HABITAT (including "social activity" areas,
"fly-through" areas, and nesting or potential nesting areas) in terms
of Marbled Murrelet CONSERVATION and RECOVERY.
B. Examine whether the
Richardson Grove area could play a role in helping to re-inhabit Marbled
Murrelet Conservation Area #5 with murrelets, and whether the highway
proposal in the Richardson Grove area could impact the chances for north coast
murrelets to ever interbreed with murrelets in MM Conservation Area #6 (without
being captured and relocated).
In my scoping comments of 6-5-08 in between my numbered points 2
and 3, from memory I mentioned that a study predicted 100% likelihood of
extirpation of the murrelet from the area south of the Humboldt /
I hope to attach a pdf file with several key pages from the
document which had this info, but now I will at least name the document and
quote most of a key paragraph here in regards to likelihood for extirpation of
the murrelet in MMCZ 5 and MMCZ 6. This
quote is from Page VII.6.6-74 of Volume 1B from the Draft EIR for the Draft
Jackson Demonstration State Forest Management Plan prepared for the California
State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection dated December 2005. "The Zone Model projected an extirpation
probability of 100% within 40 years for Recovery Zones 5 and 6 with a 2% annual
migration rate into the zone. This
projection is consistent with other sources and modeling efforts (population
decline of 4-7% per annum) (USFWS 1997, Beissinger and Nur 1997). Higher fecundity and immigration rates would
lengthen the time to extirpation in Zones 5 and 6. Conversely, slightly lower immigration rates
in Zone 5 would hasten extirpation."
Further up on the page of the Jackson Forest document mentioned in
the previous paragraph is more info on the model used which predicted this
extirpation within 40 years (thus about 2044).
To briefly summarize, McShane et al. 2004 did the 5-Year Murrelet Status
Review building on prior work to prepare the Leslie Matrix models for each
Marbled Murrelet Conservation Zone (considered vital for the species
recovery), and the conclusion was summarized in the quoted section in the previous
paragraph regarding 100% likelihood of extirpation from MMCZ 5 and MMCZ 6 in 40
years -- which would be about the year 2044.
C. In regards to opening up
the predominately redwood canopy under the Richardson Grove
"re-alignment" proposal, how would this impact "DIE-BACK",
"WIND-THROW", and "BLOW-DOWN" of redwood and other
trees? This analysis must also consider
the damage to roots of redwoods and other trees due to grinding, root-cutting,
paving, and other facets of the construction process which disturb soil
(including its micro-organisms like mycorrhizal fungi) and tree
roots. HOW WOULD SUCH CANOPY-OPENING
COMBINED WITH SOIL AND ROOT DISTURBANCES (and shifts in drainage due to
construction) IMPACT SHORT, MIDDLE, AND LONG-TERM HABITAT FOR THE MARBLED MURRELET? Weather disturbances must also be considered
in such calculations.
D. Examine approximate
sizes of predominately ancient coast redwood stands from the Oregon border
south through the Santa Cruz Mountains (if not to the Big Sur area) -- while examining
in greater detail the size and quality of such stands to provide various kinds
of habitat for the Marbled Murrelet from the Humboldt Bay area south through
Marin (or at least Sonoma) County.
E. If the document claims
that mixed conifer stands can help pick up the slack as far as providing some
habitat for the Marbled Murrelet (due to dwindling numbers
of predominately ancient redwood stands), then the document must provide
sound scientific evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood of nesting
success by murrelets in mixed conifer stands in the state of California.
Point E is raised since, though it is not mentioned in the
DEIR/EA, murrelets in California generally seem to require a large mossy
horizontal conifer branch to nest with ancient redwood canopy further up
(preferably in a reasonable size stand) to guard against nest predation. Richardson Grove is the furthest south
reasonable size ancient redwood forest stand along the
There will be various quotes later in these comments pertaining to
the "gap" between this county line and the murrelet population in the
Santa Cruz Mountains in which murrelet feeding and especially nesting activity
is very scarce, and how this area is nonetheless vital for murrelet recovery
and for more diverse gene flow to help assure survival of the species throughout
its range.
G. What are likely
cumulative impacts of projects by Caltrans including (but not limited to) the
work in the Confusion Hill area, the proposed "re-alignment" in the
Richardson Grove area, and other projects on Marbled Murrelet CONSERVATION
and RECOVERY, as well as on CONSERVATION and RECOVERY of Coho Salmon and other
native fish of the South Fork Eel River?
Since I have heard suggestion of widening of the
H. Examine how an increase in ship traffic to Humboldt Bay
and elsewhere in northern/central California would increase the risk of oil,
bunker fuel, or other hazardous spills in the Pacific Ocean and in
Humboldt Bay, and how might this impact the population of the Marbled Murrelet
in California since it spends much of its life at sea (while some also
spend time in Humboldt Bay)?
I. What will the cumulative
impacts of the Richardson Grove project be from the removal of
some trees, from the cutting of the roots of some trees, from using equipment
(including heavy machines and tools) in many phases of the construction
process, from allowing heavier trucks on the roadway when the project is
completed, from soil compaction, and from raising the elevation of the
forest in the short, mid, and long-term including on the trees, on
micro-organisms including mycorrhizal fungi, and other species which inhabit
and/or pass through the Richardson Grove area?
J. Examine the impact of the Richardson Grove road alteration
and tree-removal project on tree transpiration, fog-drip, the hydrologic
cycle, rainfall, temperature extremes, fire risk, and on temperature and
sedimentation of the
The following are important quotes in regards to likely
predation on Marbled Murrelet adults (thus not just predation on murrelet
chicks and eggs). The first of these is
from Chapter 3 - 303 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision
of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land
Management Volume I October 2008:
"Studies about the relationship between the proximity of
human-modified habitat and an increased abundance of avian predators and
increased predation on marbled murrelet nests include:" ... (the last
bullet point reads) .... "If the
surrounding landscape has been permanently modified to change the predators'
numbers or densities due to agriculture, urbanization, or recreation, and
predators are causing unnaturally high nest failures, then reproductive success
of the marbled murrelet may remain depressed.
Because corvids account for the majority of depredations on marbled
murrelet nests and corvid density can increase with human development, corvid predation
on marbled murrelet habitat is a primary consideration. The threat of predation on marbled
murrelet populations (both nests and adults) appears to be greater than
previously anticipated (McShane et al. 2004)." Another quote is this from the same set of
documents -- this time in Appendix H page "Appendices -
208" which says, "Current evidence suggests that the cause of this
low reproductive rate may be due to high
rates of predation on eggs, young, and possibly adults at the nest site." This quote also mentions predation on
murrelet adults -- it is from the final document relating to the Western Oregon
Plan Revisions proposed on BLM lands, but I believe this wording is quoted from
the murrelet recovery plan of 1997 and used in the WOPR document. It is under the topic "3.1.1.2 Maintain
potential and suitable habitat in larger contiguous blocks while maintaining
current north/south and east/west distribution of nesting
habitat." It reads (on Appendices - 207) "By
maintaining occupied sites and suitable habitat in larger blocks with low
levels of fragmentation, several objectives will be met. Larger stands will" ... "(4)
provide greater interior forest habitat conditions (to reduce potential nest and adult predation, increase
protection of nests from windstorms and environmental changes, and reduce loss
of habitat from windthrow and fire)."
************************************************************************************
The following are some
important excerpts from the Final EIS for the Revision of the Resource
Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management which
pertain to the Marbled Murrelet. The word chapter and the chapter
number is written on each page, followed by a hyphen and then the
page number of the volume. Chapter
3 - 299 says that, "The short-term actions that are necessary to stabilize
the murrelet population according to the recovery plan include: * maintain
occupied habitat * maintain large blocks
of suitable habitat * maintain and
enhance buffer habitat * decrease risks
of nesting habitat loss due to fire and windthrow * reduce predation * minimize disturbance." The asterisks in that quote were delineating
bullet points in the document. I
contend that the proposed highway and retaining wall project in the Richardson
Grove would have an opposite impact than what biologists say is necessary to
assure murrelet survival and have a decent chance for species recovery.
From the
same document and page: "The long-term conservation needs for the murrelet
according to the recovery plan include:
* increase productivity (abundance, ratio of juveniles to adults, and
nest success) and population size * increase the amount (stand size and number
of stands), quality, and distribution of suitable nesting habitat * protect and improve the quality of the
marine environment * reduce or eliminate
threats to survivorship by reducing predation in the terrestrial environment
and anthropogenic sources of mortality at sea". It continues: "The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USDI USFWS 1997) estimates that recovery of the marbled
murrelet will require at least 50 years." It continues:
"Six conservation zones were designated in the marbled
murrelet recovery plan (USDI USFWS 1997). The recovery objectives for the marbled
murrelet are measured in each conservation zone with the objective of ensuring
a well-dispersed population of marbled murrelets."
The top of Chapter 3 - 300
says, "The following recent documents summarize the condition of the
marbled murrelet across its range and are incorporated by reference: * evaluation report for the five-year status
review of the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California (McShane
et al. 1994) * marbled murrelet
five-year review (USDI USFWS 2004b) *
status and trends of populations and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet
(Huff et al. 2006)". I do want to
point out that one should take the USFWS report with a grain of salt due to
undue political pressure on biologists during the George W. Bush Administration
-- for instance, there were efforts during that administration to eliminate 96%
of the designated critical habitat for the murrelet, and there were attempts to
de-list the murrelet from the federal Endangered Species Act as well.
On Chapter 3 - 301, a
couple of the bullet points which were conclusions reached by the team of Huff
et al. (2006) as part of an evaluation effort following ten years of
the Northwest Forest Plan being in effect are: " * The highest
densities of marbled murrelets occurred along the Oregon and northern
California coasts" and " * The lowest densities of marbled murrelets occurred from the
Mendocino and Humboldt county line south to San Francisco Bay."
Chapter 3 - 302 says,
"Actual nests and behaviors indicate that marbled murrelets select
old-growth forests for nesting. The
proportion of older forest (mature and old-growth) on the landscape and the
size of the forest patch were greater in occupied sites than unoccupied sites. Marbled murrelets nest in landscapes with
larger stands with less edge, farther from logged areas than random
watersheds."
Here is the first full
paragraph on Chapter 3 - 305: "McShane et
al. (2004) produced a demographic model of marbled murrelet populations in
The last paragraph on
Chapter 3 - 305 reads: "The recovery plan states that four of the
six zones must be functional in order to effectively recover the marbled
murrelet in the short term and long term (e.g., to maintain viable
populations that are well distributed). However, based on the newest
population estimates, it appears only three of the zones contain relatively
robust numbers of marbled murrelets (Zones 1, 3, and 4). Zones 1 and 4 contain the largest number
of marbled murrelets compared to the other four zones, but areas of
concern remain. Of the population in
Zone 4, there were 10 percent killed in oil spills in 1997 (Bentivoglio et al.
2002; Ford et al. 2002)."
The following are quotes
from the Appendices Volume 3 Appendix H. Wildlife. Appendices -
204 begins a section called Management Opportunities on BLM-Administered Lands in
the Recovery Plans for the Columbia White-Tailed Deer and Marbled
Murrelet. Under the Marbled
Murrelet section, it says that, "Portions excerpted from Recovery Plan For The Threatened Marbled
Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in
"The Siskiyou Coast
Range Zone extends from North Bend,
"Recovery actions
should be focused on preventing the loss of occupied nesting habitat, minimizing the loss of unoccupied but
suitable habitat, and decreasing the time for development of new
suitable habitat. Much marbled murrelet
nesting habitat is found in state and national parks that receive considerable
recreational use. The need to maintain
high quality marbled murrelet terrestrial habitat should be considered in
planning any modifications to state or national parks for recreational
purposes. Both highway and
campground construction, including picnic areas, parking lots, and
visitor centers, could present threats
to the marbled murrelet through loss of habitat, nest disturbance, and/or
increasing potential predation from corvids associated with human activities
such as Steller's jays and crows.
Implementing appropriate garbage/trash disposal may help decrease
potential predator populations in high human use areas such as county, state
and national parks.
This zone has large
blocks of suitable habitat critical to the three-state marbled murrelet
population recovery over the next 100 years. However, the amount of suitable
habitat protected in parks is probably not sufficient by itself
to guarantee long-term survival of marbled murrelets in
this Zone. On the other hand, a
considerable amount of habitat is preserved in parks such that survival may be
more likely in this Zone than in several other Zones. Private lands at the southern end of this
Zone are important for maintaining the current distribution of the
species. There is already a
considerable gap in distribution between this area and the central
A key sentence later on
Appendices - 205 under "2.
Delineate and protect areas of habitat within each Zone. 2.1 Protect terrestrial habitat
essential for marbled murrelet recovery" says, "Marbled murrelet
population trends described above (also see Appendix B) have led the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to conclude that a
number of areas, including nesting areas and feeding sites well-distributed
throughout its terrestrial and marine range, are essential to the conservation
of the species."
On Appendices - 206,
after "2.3.1 Develop and implement
management plans that incorporate the needs of the marbled murrelet for each
protected habitat area on Federal lands" and after another paragraph, it
says, "Management plans should be based on the best
available information on the biology and recovery needs of the marbled
murrelet and should be able to adapt to new information as it becomes
available. For example, a variety of
management activites could decrease predation mortality at marbled murrelet
nests (e.g., silvicultural practices designed to provide shelter to nest sites
or to speed development of marbled murrelet habitat; garbage removal from
state and national parks). Efforts
to reduce or eliminate these manmade food sources in state and national parks
are currently being discussed."
Under "3.1 Implement
short-term actions to stabilize and increase the population. 3.1.1 Maintain/protect occupied nesting
habitat and minimize loss of unoccupied but suitable nesting habitat. 3.1.1.1 Maintain occupied nesting
habitat", it says, "In the short-term (the next 5 - 10 years), until
additional information is obtained, loss
of any occupied sites or unsurveyed suitable habitat should be avoided or
the potential impacts significantly reduced through a habitat evaluation
and ranking process outlined in the Habitat Conservation
Plan." (On the
I shall now quote "3.1.1.2 Maintain potential and
suitable habitat in larger contiguous blocks while maintaining current
north/south and east/west distribution of nesting habitat." "By maintaining occupied sites and
suitable habitat in larger blocks with
low levels of fragmentation, several objectives will be met. Larger stands will (1) have more nesting
and hiding opportunities, (2) provide for multiple alternative nesting sites
for individual pairs of birds over time, (3) facilitate nesting for multiple
pairs of birds (and thus promote increased social contact), and (4) provide greater interior forest
habitat conditions (to reduce potential nest and adult predation, increase
protection of nests from windstorms and environmental changes, and reduce loss
of habitat from windthrow and fire). Larger stands also may provide a core
of birds to attract or develop sufficient activity and eventual nesting by
subadults or nonbreeding adult birds to replace breeding adults lost from
this habitat over time due to natural causes or human activities. The more contiguous the habitat
distribution, the lower the likelihood of future large gaps in
distribution of the species due to catastrophic events such as oil spills
or large wildfires. Preventing further
erosion of the already patchily-distributed nesting habitat is a key
element in buffering the species against such catastrophic events. This is especially important in areas
where gaps already occur.
Furthermore, it is currently unknown how nesting success differs with
distance from the coast, and far inland habitat may be as important to species
survival as those nearer the shore.
Therefore, it is important to maintain both north/south and east/west
distribution of suitable habitat."
On the bottom
of Appendices - 207 is "3.1.1.3 Maintain and enhance buffer
habitat surrounding occupied habitat."
That section reads (on the following page): "Maintaining buffers around occupied habitat will mediate the
effects of edge by helping to reduce environmental changes within the stand,
reduce loss of habitat from windthrow and fire, reduce fragmentation levels,
increase the amount of interior forest habitat available, and potentially help
reduce predation at the nest. To
have the greatest benefits, buffer widths should be a minimum of 300-600 feet
and should consist of whatever age stand is present, including
existing plantations (which should be managed to provide
replacement." A key sentence under
"3.1.3 Minimize nest disturbances to increase reproductive success"
says, "Higher than normal predation
levels are likely to occur in nesting habitat due to forest fragmentation
and other causes in many cases."
Under "3.2 Implement long-term actions to stop
population decline and increase population growth. 3.2.1 Increase the amount and quality of
suitable nesting habitat", it says, "It also would be desirable to increase and block up suitable
nesting habitat in the Mendocino and Santa Cruz Mountains Zones. Little habitat remains outside of parks
in these two zones, such that an increase in the short term does not
appear feasible." Under "3.2.1.1 Decrease fragmentation by
increasing the size of suitable stands to provide a larger area of interior
forest conditions., it says, "The majority of suitable nest
stands currently exist as small islands within a matrix of younger
forests. Although these fragments will provide critically
important habitat during the several decades required for younger stands to
develop structural characteristics suitable for marbled murrelet nesting, they cannot be considered high quality
habitat because of vulnerability to wildfire and windthrow, and perhaps a
higher abundance of avian predators.
Research is needed to develop judicious ways to use silvicultural
techniques such as thinning in young (nonhabitat) stands to hasten development
of large trees and decrease
vulnerability of habitat fragments to fire, wind, and perhaps predators."
On Appendices - 209,
under "3.2.1.2 Protect 'recruitment'
nesting habitat to buffer and enlarge existing stands, reduce fragmentation,
and provide replacement habitat for current suitable nesting habitat lost to
disturbance events", it says, "Stands (currently 80 years old or
older) that will produce suitable habitat within the next few decades are the
most immediate source of new habitat and may be the only replacement for
existing habitat lost to disturbance (e.g., timber harvest, fires, etc.) over
the next century. Such stands are
particularly important because of the
vulnerability of many existing habitat fragments to fire and wind and the
possibility that climate change will increase the effects of the frequency and
severity of natural disturbances. Such stands should not be subjected
to any silvicultural treatment that dimishes their capacity to provide quality
nesting habitat in the future."
On Appendices - 209,
under "3.2.1.3 Use silvicultural techniques to increase speed of
development of new habitat", several key sentences read: "Nesting marbled
murrelets select stands with large trees that provide suitable nesting
platforms (large, protected branches, preferably with moss). When available, large stands appear to be preferred over small ones." It goes on later on that page and into the
next: "Landscapes with a higher
proportion of older stands should be less susceptible to catastrophic wildfire
(providing reduced hazard from thinning slash)."
And finally, my last
quote from this document, under "3.2.2 Improve Distribution of Nesting Habitat",
some key sentences read: "3.2.2.1
Improve and develop north/south distribution of nesting habitat. Improving the distribution of nesting habitat
helps to buffer existing populations against poor breeding success and
catastrophic loss and probably facilitates gene flow among separated
populations. Three major gaps in
existing habitat are particularly apparent: (1) from the southern Olympic
Peninsula in Washington to Tillamook in northwestern Oregon; (2) between
Patrick's Point and southern Humboldt Bay in northern California (see Figure
1); and (3) throughout most of the
Mendocino Zone and the northern part of the Santa Cruz Mountains Zone (between
southern Humboldt County and central San Mateo County). These three geographic gaps represent probable partial barriers to gene flow
across them." That paragraph also
says, "Portions of the Mendocino
Zone and Santa Cruz Mountains Zone also contain blocks of unsuitable habitat
that probably naturally created small gaps in the murrelet's terrestrial range.
Again, loss of suitable habitat around
these small natural gaps has greatly widened them. These gaps have probably grown together and
eliminated suitable nesting habitat over a large section of their range."
************************************************************************************
I wanted to give some
quotes from the document which makes it sound like legal statutes require
consideration of geographical and ecological distribution of a species -- in
this case the murrelet. Here is an important
quote from page 100-101 of the DEIR/EA: "Primary constituent elements of
the designated critical habitat for the Marbled Murrelet consist of physical
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species
within areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that may require
special management considerations and protection. These include such factors as space for
individual and population growth and for normal behavior, food, water, air,
light, minerals, cover or shelter, sites for breeding and rearing of offspring,
and habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distribution of a species."
Thus, this is where concerns about murrelet north/south distribution
comes into play, while the Marbled Murrelet Conservation Zones are a good help
in analyzing likelihood of survival and recovery (or extirpation).
I want to point out that
the DEIR/EA stated that USFWS designated critical habitat for the MAMU of 5-24-96
including 39,958 acres in southern Humboldt County including Richardson Grove
State Park. There is also admission that, "due to the
sensitivity of the species, it was determined that the project 'May Affect, and
is likely to Adversely Affect' Marbled Murrelet." (pg. 103). Documents relating to this project also
admits that Richardson Grove is suitable nesting habitat and that the South
Fork Eel River is a migration corridor for the murrelet. Seeing that there were inadequate
considerations of opening the canopy, damaging roots (including mid and
longer-term impacts), and other factors, it was improper to conclude that the
project would not adversely impact murrelet designated critical
habitat. Both a quote which I think I included from the WOPR, as
well as personally hearing that state parks is looking at closing picnic areas,
campgrounds, and even parks on the North Coast if murrelet population
numbers continue to plummet -- thus, the corvid-proof trash containers should
occur without a damaging project prompting it!
The Natural Environment
Study was incorrect in stating that the murrelet is a "threatened"
species for both the federal and state levels.
It is actually listed as state-endangered (as it says in another
document). I find it telling that there
is mention of preventing root impacts under the single MAMU-related paragraph
in that study -- this indicates to me that there is concern among biologists
that larger redwoods will be negatively impacted which could seriously impact
the canopy, fire danger, vulnerability to natural disturbances, etc. due to the
proposed project in the Richardson Grove area.
There is the ridiculous claim that the noise and activity around tree
removal and construction will be not much more than background -- give us watt
and decibel estimate numbers please!!
There is an admission that, "the temporary noise, night work, and
activity associated with project construction, is likely to disturb murrelets
that are nesting in the area." But
then a lawyer apparently concluded that the project will not adversely modify
MAMU Critical Habitat. What time frame
did that last conclusion consider -- just the short-term?
The Biological Assessment
admits that, "Noise and activity of construction workers and construction
equipment may disturb breeding NSO and MAMU.
Construction activity may also disturb NSO foraging and MAMU migration
patterns in the Project Area."
Please note that trees and vegetation help absorb sound, so that
removing such will then get higher decibel sound travelling farther in the area
which could disturb listed species.
************************************************************************************
Due to the listing of the
Marbled Murrelet as "endangered" under the California Endangered
Species Act, California state agencies have the duty to help recover this
endangered species according to Fish and Game Code sections cited below:
2053. The Legislature
further finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that state
agencies should not approve projects as proposed which would jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the
continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent
alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat
which would prevent jeopardy.
2055. The Legislature
further finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that all state
agencies, boards, and commissions shall seek to conserve endangered species and
threatened species and shall utilize their authority in furtherance of the
purposes of this chapter.
2061. 'Conserve,' 'conserving,' amd 'conservation' mean to use,
and the use of, all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary. These methods and procedures include, but are
not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management,
such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition, restoration and
maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot
be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking."
****************************************************************************************
Page VII.6.6-75 of the
Jackson Demonstration State Forest Draft Management Plan told of researchers
C.J. Ralph and Miller's findings that "the most important factor in
indicating occupied stands was density of old-growth canopy cover" --
still referring to the murrelet obviously.
I shall now quote part of
the group comments by 26 environmental groups on the Draft EIS by the Bureau of
Land Management's Western Oregon Plan Revisions in regards to the marbled
murrelet. "Low fecundity levels
across Washington, Oregon, and California as measured by nest success indicate
a population that cannot maintain itself (McShane et al. 2004, Beissinger and
Perry 2003). Lower nest success is
caused primarily by nest predation, which in turn is affected by forest
fragmentation and proximity to human developments (McShane et al 2004, Raphael
et al 2002). Thus, in order to diminish
the threat if nest predation and increase in reproduction, the forest landscape
and its surroundings must be protected to provide large, contiguous blocks of
suitable nesting habitat." (from page 26 of those comments)
The 1997 Marbled Murrelet
Recovery Plan at page 119 says, "To fulfill the initial objective of
stabilizing population size, this recovery plan focuses on protecting adequate
nesting habitat by maintaining and
protecting occupied habitat and minimizing the loss of unoccupied but suitable
habitat". That same MM Recovery
Plan on page 121 said that short-term actions "are critical because of the
length of time necessary to develop most new nesting habitat (100-200 years).
... Short-term actions include: (1) maintaining occupied habitat; (2)
maintaining large blocks of suitable habitat; (3) maintaining and enhancing
buffer habitat...."
In relation to the three
paragraphs above and some other Marbled Murrelet points made and questions
asked in these scoping comments, even if corvids feeding on human food scraps
at campgrounds and in truck stop / areas with stores in the Richardson Grove
area results in no current Marbled Murrelet nesting in the fairly immediate
Highway 101 area, yet still the Richardson Grove so-called
"re-alignment" should not negatively impact what biologists call
"short-term actions" which are needed to protect murrelet
habitat. Please examine how each of the
offered alternatives (including the "No Action Alternative") impact the
important short-term actions which are summarized as "maintaining occupied
habitat" -- I would add occasional habitat rather than just current
nesting habitat -- plus "maintaining large blocks of suitable
habitat" and "maintaining and enhancing buffer habitat."
*******************************************************************
CALTRANS PROCESS, PRESSURE, ECONOMICS, AND GROWTH
There needs to be a more
thorough history in future documents in regards to who has been pressuring and
contacting Caltrans for years to get various studies to conclude that the
proposed project will be good for the economy and for certain larger
businesses, but that it would not promote growth which would then require a
more thorough analysis under CEQA.
Who paid for the one
study (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2003) which claimed that local residents pay
10 to 15% more for goods due to "poor truck access" which was said to
increase the decline in locally-owned business out of Humboldt County?
It appears that Caltrans
(and likely the FHWA and powerful elements of the business community) has been
laying the groundwork for the Highway 101 widening / re-alignment at Richardson
Grove since perhaps around 2002. In
future environmental impact documents, please include all Caltrans
correspondence with government agencies and the business community regarding
the highway project in the Richardson Grove area.
I note that Cambridge
Systematics, Inc. apparently got hired and wrote a report entitled
"Transportation for Economic Development". This same company has also done a study and
report in regards to expanding the 710 Long Beach Freeway whose southern end is
around the giant Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Does this group focus on advising how to
expand port and transportation infrastructure to help major commercial
interests move goods, or what would you say is their focus?
In the DEIR/EA, I noticed
two mentions about a possible end to manufacture of trucks which do not meet
STAA standards. One mention says that
such trucks will no longer be manufactured as of 2010, while the other seems to
indicate that manufacture of such vehicles has already ceased. Can you confirm through other sources
(besides CS, Inc.) in future environmental impact documents relating to the
Richardson Grove project about this matter?
And, if such CA Legal vehicles were no longer produced, do you mean the
trailer portion of the vehicle, or the cab??
It is claimed that,
"Several businesses, including lumber, floral, food, and other manufacturing,
as well as the local newspaper, have noted higher costs and have considered
relocating out of the County."
Companies like Maxxam / Pacific Lumber has essentially liquidated their
forests, taken the proceeds out of the county, and have declared
bankruptcy. Timberland areas and floral
farms have their land (with the floral farm being raided due to hiring a lot of
illegal workers since apparently the boss did not even want to pay the already
pretty low wages paid to legal workers in Humboldt County, so it is
difficult for them to pick up and go. A
local newspaper relocating is almost a contradiction in terms, and if they did
and remained sort of a local newspaper, would they print the paper elsewhere
and truck copies into the Humboldt Bay area in STAA trucks?
If "Dr. Gallo"
is such a profound scholar on commerce on the North Coast, please either
publish his report and associated surveys, or leave any mention of him out of
future environmental impact documents.
Besides the alleged economic
boom for larger companies, did Dr. Gallo, CS Inc., or anyone else study what
the impact of "opening the Redwood Curtain" at Richardson Grove means
for tourist businesses, other smaller businesses, basic wages, and trucker
wages in Humboldt County? Also, in my
6-5-08 scoping comments, I specifically asked about companies and personnel in
the locales where some trucks are reloaded so as not to bring STAA trucks along
Highway 101 at the Eel River Canyon and through Richardson Grove. I saw no response to this query or mention of
the issue. Here is what was numbered
point # 24 in my scoping comments of 6-5-08:
24. I notice that there are nine companies mentioned on this URL
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/routes/eureka.htm>http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/routes/eureka.htm which
geographically range from Petaluma to Crescent City to Redding who are
"Companies for Hire" in order to reach Eureka legally. What will the economic impact be on these
companies if the proposed project on Highway 101 in the vicinity of Richardson
Grove is carried out? Also, what will
the impact of this highway project be (in post-construction phase) on the
employment rate and economy of Leggett, California?
Note that even your
document admitted a "psychological" effect from further widening of
Highway 101 by Richardson Grove. Is this
effect included in your analysis in regards to potential growth impacts
resulting from the project near the Grove?
Do you know of any advertising campaigns in the works to get investors
and companies to focus on economic development in Humboldt County?
I find it somewhat ironic
that comments on this highway project at Richardson Grove are due one day
before the comments on the Balloon Tract are due. These two proposed projects, along with a
huge stimulus request to the federal government from powerful players in
Humboldt County (among other actions and proposals), indicate that various
forces are poised to change the nature of commerce on the North Coast by
promoting growth of big-box stores, port development, likely other
infrastructure development, etc. Thus,
future environmental impact documents regarding the highway project in the
Richardson Grove area should seriously address the various proposals (including
proposed and perhaps actualized funding for transportation infrastructure and
port and rail expansion in Humboldt County) and how each one (and/or
combinations thereof) could change the community character and promote growth
of big-box, extractive, and other sectors in Humboldt County -- and how that
could impact current wages, small businesses, tourist businesses, etc.
There must be a realistic estimate as to how many days (and/or
possible evenings), and approximately how many hours on those days or evenings,
that one or both lanes of Highway 101 would be blocked in the Richardson Grove
vicinity to accomodate large earth-moving and construction vehicles, logging,
root-cutting, road widening / re-alignment, shoulder-construction, and wall
construction associated with this project?
What impact would this have on the economy of Humboldt County, as well
as on the exasperation level of its residents and on travellers to or through
the north coast?
What percentage of
highways, ramps, and roads throughout the state of California can accomodate
STAA trucks? How many more acres of
pavement would be needed to accomodate these larger vehicles to get to basic
services and to their destinations in Humboldt County, and what would the
carbon footprint of that be? While those
pushing globalization may feel that "industry standard" is taking
huge loads from ports to big-box stores (or bringing huge trucks in from Mexico
or Canada), but since California tends to be sprawled out, it is presumptuous
to call something an industry standard if such trucks cannot access a
significant area within the state or even a significant area near designated
routes for these giant
trucks?******************************************************************************************************
Even if Caltrans
continues to stubbornly refuse to conduct a thorough NEPA analysis and
Environmental Impact Statement on the Richardson Grove
"re-alignment" matter, still the effect of the proposal on
"scenery" and on "native fish" should be analyzed in the
EIR / Study. "Scenery"
and native "fish" happen to be the designated "Outstandingly
Remarkable Values" within a quarter mile of the National Wild and Scenic
South Fork Eel River which certainly encompasses the portion of the Richardson
Grove area in which the re-alignment is proposed. I would also like to note that National Wild
and Scenic River goal 1.1 is not only protection of "outstandingly
remarkable values" but it also calls for "to the extent practicable,
such values would be enhanced."
Note: The effect of the highway project in the Richardson Grove
area on "scenery" should be evaluated for drivers, vehicle
passengers, bicyclists, hikers, others visiting or passing through the area by
whatever means, as well as for local residents, those in rehabilitation at
Singing Tree, those who work in the immediate or general area doing whatever
task including store employees, law enforcement personnel, highway workers, and
state park employees.
There
needs to be a thorough analysis of the effects of the various alternatives on
not only temperature and sedimentation in the Eel River, but also in the
tributary streams including in the Richardson Grove area and the area to its
north. How might each of the alternatives
impact the slope stability situation not far north of where much of the
hillside removal and shoulder creation work is projected to occur -- seeing
that a large storm, seismic disturbance, and/or further highway or
slope deterioration there could result in more catastrophic collapse and clearly
impact both sedimentation and water temperature in the South Fork Eel River.
The document says that
stumps (I imagine from the mid-size and larger trees to be cut) would remain in
place. While this would be better for
redwood tree roots than uprooting the stumps, but it is a serious visual blight
for park visitors and for those travelling through the Grove along the highway
as well -- this deterioration of an Outstandingly Remarkable Value must be
carefully assessed.
******************************************************************************************************
While clearly I have
focused this comment more on the Marbled Murrelet than other species, but I
wanted to make several points regarding the Northern Spotted Owl. In various parts of the DEIR/EA and BA, I
read that there was a NSO nest a quarter mile to the north of the project, that
there was no known NSO nest within a quarter mile of the project site, and that
the nest to the north is a half mile away.
Please get clear and share the correct info on such. Since the NSO is to the north of the project,
removing many trees in its foraging territory between the stand to the north
(which I imagine may have some remnant large conifer trees) and the ancient
stand at Richardson Grove State Park would hurt NSO foraging habitat. Also, night-work with bright lights would
illuminate the ground which might discourage some rodents from their usual
activities and thus not be available for consumption by the NSO. Have there been any studies whether opening
up canopy more can encourage barred owls to become more established in the
vicinity?
Also, impacts to the NSO
must be evaluated not only in the local region, but also in regards to indirect
and cumulative impacts if allowing STAA truck movement would encourage a rash
of additional extractive activities which could have deleterious effects on NSO
habitat.
******************************************************************************************************
What fill dirt will
be used to raise the roadway several feet for at least one of the proposed
areas for realignment, what will the source of the fill dirt be, what toxic
materials may be present in the fill dirt, and what non-native plant species
seeds may be in the fill dirt or on tires of construction vehicles, and might
this promote non-native plants and an increase in the use of herbicides in
the vicinity? Will the fill dirt to
raise the elevation of the road interfere with the root-structure of the forest
or interfere with the "A horizon" (top layer of soil) since what was
the "A horizon" will no longer be the top layer of soil? Also, due to plans of shaving some hillsides
and building a major retaining wall, will this increase use of herbicides on
highway shoulder(s) north of Richardson Grove State Park?
One serious drawback of
the DEIR/EA and BA is the almost absent section and analysis on hazardous
waste/materials. From my reading, only
the striping paint with lead, plus the lead deposited on vegetation from
vehicles, were mentioned under this heading.
Besides including immediately below my wording from my 6-5-08 scoping
comments, I wanted to also ask what CTPB is made out of and what its
contaminants are. Would allowing more
permeability through this substance lead to more toxic material reaching the
roots of redwood trees including to mycorrhizal fungi? Also, what are the exact components and
contaminants in "soil binders" and "dust palliatives"? So, please list all substances contained in
CTPB and in hot asphalt mix as well.
"Hazardous
waste" is the first bullet point under "studies have been conducted
in the following areas" in the Caltrans brochure. I urge you to call that "hazardous
materials" rather than waste, since some might claim that if one uses a hazardous
material as part of normal operation that it is being used and thus
is not a waste. I am partly referring
here to Caltrans' historic prolific use of toxic herbicides. If the "shoulder area" is expanded
at least in portions of the Richardson Grove State Park and its vicinity along
Highway 101, will it bring about an increase (or any) herbicide use in these
specific areas? If so, list all active
and inert ingredients in each formulation which may be used, the synergistic
impact of these ingredients mixed together, and the impact of these on human
health and on native salmonid species.
We also need more info on why certain disposal sites were chosen related
to this project, and what the likelihood is of sediments and other materials
from the project entering the South Fork Eel River.
It is disturbing that
page iii of the DEIR/EA says that, "the Department will confirm the
proposed build alternative". I
believe that will be the case -- however, one is supposed to be considering
submitted evidence rather than just rubber-stamping what Caltrans is under
pressure to approve.
******************************************************************************************************
Here is an important
quote from page 100-101 of the DEIR/EA: "Primary constituent elements of
the designated critical habitat for the Marbled Murrelet consist of physical
and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species
within areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that may require special
management considerations and protection.
These include such factors as space for individual and population growth
and for normal behavior, food, water, air, light, minerals, cover or shelter,
sites for breeding and rearing of offspring, and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
the historic geographical and ecological distribution of a species." Thus, this is where concerns about murrelet
north/south distribution comes into play, while the Marbled Murrelet Conservation
Zones are a good help in analyzing likelihood of survival and recovery (or
extirpation).
The BA points out that
consultation should involve, "Determinations of effect are based on the
probable impacts to individuals, habitat, and local populations of the listed
species as well as long-range effects on the species as a whole resulting from
the action" (and I would say cumulative impact of the action throughout
the region due to the project and its repercussions).
************************************************************************************************************
This single paragraph
does not occur on my e-mailed version, but is in my comment which I am sending
through the mail. In essence, a thorough
analysis of the cumulative impacts of the Richardson Grove area highway project
on the Marbled Murrelet would need to include a serious assessment of
the higher level of noise from all the tree
removal/demolition/construction activities from the project, the great increase
in light from such activities (as well as fumes from diesel, asphalt-laying,
etc.), the short-term opening of the mid-canopy and likelihood of opening of
upper canopy due to impacts on tree roots (including impact of staging and
construction and paving up to tree base and the impact of that and other
activities on mycorrhizal fungi), the short and mid-term impacts from canopy
opening making large trees more vulnerable to natural disturbances such as
wind-throw, blow-down, and fire, the deterioration in habitat value from opening
up the canopy creating more fragmentation and edge which corvids thrive in, the
likely impacts in the marine environment seeing that highway, rail, and port
expansion promotes seem to work together which could bring more marine traffic
and related spills impacting the murrelet, as well as impact on extractive
activities in the county in general which may be encouraged by use of larger
trucks along Highway 101. And, of
course, keep the larger picture of need for MMCZ 4 murrelets to re-inhabit MMCZ
5, and how even comparatively marginal (due to highway and campground) habitat
can be vital in assisting the recovery of this species.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce Campbell
Attached in PDF and in U.S. mail is a cover page and several key
pages from the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Draft Jackson
Demonstration State Forest Management Plan
SCH# 2004022025 discussing murrelet populations, Marbled Murrelet
Conservation Zones, and the probability of extirpation of the murrelet south of
the Humboldt / Mendocino County line