Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > ONP Elwha Road Access EA: Public Meeting 11-13-2019; Public Comments Till 12-18-2019
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Ancient Ambler
Member
Member


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bainbridge Island
Ancient Ambler
Member
PostTue Nov 12, 2019 3:29 pm 
Olympic National Park's (ONP) Olympic Hot Springs Road (OHSR), also known as the Elwha Road, has been closed at ONP's north boundary since 2018 due to washouts about 1 mile upriver. This has closed vehicle access to some of ONP’s most popular trailheads and sites. In March 2019, ONP accepted public comments on three alternatives to address the closed Elwha Road. ONP staff and others have considered those public comments and in November 2019 released a detailed Environmental Assessment (EA) and related documents on OHSR access options. To help the public understand the options, ONP will hold a Public Meeting on November 13, 2019 in Port Angeles. A similar public meeting in December 2018 provided important information that did not appear in the printed material that was released before the December 2018 public meeting. I encourage anyone who can attend this meeting to do so. I plan to be there and will report any news I hear in a follow-up post on this nwhikers.net thread. Here are the details on the Public Meeting: Public Meeting November 13, 2019 5:30 to 7:00 PM Elwha Klallam Heritage Center 401 East First Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Links to 11-04-2019 Online Elwha Road EA documents A variety of EA documentation was posted online on November 4, 2019. A one page synopsis of the EA issues can be read at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/OHSREA. The official 10-28-2019 EA and related documents are in pdf files located several layers below the foregoing URL, as is the comment submission button. Direct access to the comment submission button and to the EA pdf files is provided by clicking on this URL: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=329&projectID=84555&documentID=99407. This brings up a page entitled “Olympic Hot Springs Road Long-Term Access Environmental Assessment (2019)”. This page provides a concise 4 paragraph overview of the EA process. Under the 4 paragraph overview, there is a section entitled “Document Content” and a list of 4 pdf files, which are the actual EA and related documents. You will need Adobe reader installed on your device to view and read the EA. The 4 EA-related files are as follows: “OHSR EA Public Review Letter.pdf” is a 10 page summary of the EA. “10-28-19 OHS Road EA Final Public Review Version.pdf” is the actual 98 page EA document. “10-30-19 OHS Road BA final USFWS NMFS.pdf” is the 57 page biological assessment and essential fish habitat analysis. “The 10-26-19 OHS Road Draft Floodplains Draft SOF.pdf” is the 15 page draft floodplains statement of findings. If you are not up to reading the entire 98 page EA, you might consider the 10 page Public Review Letter pdf mentioned above. To submit your comments on the EA online, look for the green “Comment Now” button on the left side of the same web page on which the 4 pdf EA files are listed. Complete the comment form and then click on the “submit” button at the bottom of the form to send your comment to the National Park Service. Comments are due by December 18, 2019.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ancient Ambler
Member
Member


Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 1092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bainbridge Island
Ancient Ambler
Member
PostFri Nov 15, 2019 5:13 am 
Peninsula Daily News article on 11-13-2019 Elwha Road Public Meeting I attended the November 13, 2019 Olympic National Park (ONP) Public Meeting on the current Environmental Assessment (EA) alternatives to restore access to the Olympic Hot Springs Road (OHSR; also known as Elwha Road). For those who have been worried that the washed-out OHSR might remain closed for decades like the Dosewallips Road, ONP demonstrated a strong preference for restoring vehicle access to the many ONP features accessed by the OHSR and labelled the bypass road option "The Preferred Alternative" to do so as promptly as possible. This morning the Peninsula Daily News posted an excellent article on Wednesday's Public Meeting. Before you submit your comments to ONP on the OHSR access alternatives, I urge you to read the Peninsula Daily News article: https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/olympic-hot-springs-road-repairs-discussed/ Note that PDN gives you a few free online views of articles per month before all articles go behind a pay wall, so you might consider printing out the article for future free reference the first time you view it. Later today I will add some of my observations on topics discussed in the Public Meeting but not addressed in the PDN article. My observations on the 11-13-2019 OHSR EA Public Meeting As a framework for understanding the Public Meeting discussion, please note that the Olympic Hot Springs Road (OHSR) Environmental Assessment (EA) considers 3 alternatives for the washout-closed road: 1) No action; 2) rehab most of the road and reroute 1 mile of road so it’s outside the floodplain; and 3) rehab most of the road and (in its present location within the floodplain) raise the road 15 feet and build a 1400 foot concrete bridge. Please note that there are many more elements to each Alternative, which can only be appreciated by reading the EA. The 11-15-2019 Peninsula Daily News article linked above covers many of the topics discussed at the 11-13-2019 Public Meeting. Here are some of my observations from the 11-13-2018 Public Meeting. 1) Kirk Loftsgaarden, project manager for the Federal Highway Administration and the primary speaker at the Public Meeting, noted how popular vehicle access via OHSR has been for the public and that researchers and ONP staff need OHSR access for scientific studies in the Elwha corridor and for maintenance of many park structures in the Elwha area. This was consistent with the EA’s mention that OHSR access is important for continued monitoring and restoration of the Elwha River corridor after dam removal. Mr. Loftsgaarden noted that the “No Action” option is actually more complicated than it would seem, entailing a “strategic retreat”, which is both complex and expensive, from existing ONP assets accessed via the OHSR. The impression I got was that either of the two “action” alternatives is preferable to the “no action” alternative, all factors considered. 2) Mr. Loftsgaarden discussed some of the factors considered in weighing the two “action alternatives”. Alternative #1 (no-action) would cost $650,000. Alternative #2 (reroute road out of floodplain) would cost $8,300,000. Alternative #3 (in floodplain: raise road 15 feet plus 1400 foot long concrete bridge) would cost $31,000,000. Alternative #2 needs more geotech drilling to assess slope stability. Alternative #2 would require removing some trees but is entirely in non-wilderness designated land and is out of the floodplain. Alternative #2 will also involve placement of rock along the east bank of the east channel and diversion of water during construction. Alternative #3 is in the floodplain and the 1400 foot concrete bridge would be supported by concrete piers which Mr. Loftsgaarden said could be damaged by large trees hurtling downstream in extreme flooding events. Mr. Loftgaarden said that Alternative #2 (reroute) would be the least vulnerable to future flood damage. He discussed the factor of “constructability”, noting that ONP crews could repair most future damage to the Alternative #2 reroute road quickly and inexpensively, whereas damage to Alternative #3’s concrete bridge would require outside contractors and be time-consuming and expensive. Mr. Loftsgaarden also noted that removal of roadway that is in the floodplain (as would be accomplished by alternative #2) would best benefit the riparian habitat. Note that restoring endangered fish habitat along the Elwha River was one of the goals of removing the dams at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Considering these and many other factors noted in the EA, ONP has deemed Alternative #2 (reroute road out of floodplain) to be “the Preferred Alternative). 3) Mr. Loftsgaarden showed a powerpoint slide portraying the following timeline for Alternative #2 (reroute road out of floodplain) which would have construction completed by October 2023. However, he cautioned that it is impossible to know how long it would take after a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to get all permits issued, though he did mention that it can take upwards of 2 years. Presumably, the entire process would also be delayed if significant impacts are found that preclude issuing a FONSI. FONSI : March 2020 Permits: March 2021 Design complete: April 2021 Construction award: June 2021 Begin construction: July 2021 In water work (diversion): early August 2021 Construction completed: October 2023 4) I asked Mr. Loftsgaarden what provisions have been made to allow hikers, bikers and equestriennes to cross the Elwha corridor to reach trail heads such as Whiskey Bend during the OHSR construction phase. He responded that they are not planning to allow hikers, bikers or equestriennes to cross the OHSR area during construction and that construction will likely be in progress from about mid-March to Halloween. Park employees at the meeting further stated that it would be too dangerous to allow hiker access through the corridor while construction was occurring. 5) Another attendee asked Mr. Loftsgaarden about previous geotech drilling that had shown extensive clay under the Alternative #2 (bypass) route and the implications of that for slope stability. Mr. Loftsgaarden indicated that additional geotech drilling will be done for further assessment and engineering and construction methods will be employed for stability.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 386 | TRs | Pics
Gregory
Member
PostFri Nov 15, 2019 11:03 am 
Drove across the 101 bridge a couple of weeks ago and got to thinking of 40 years of exploring the Elwa.Press trail in scouts in the eighties. Getting involved with the early push to remove the dams. The push back by folks that did not want the dams removed. I used to have VHS tape that I believe was pro dam removal, given to me by a hatchery worker at the Skokomish hatchery, documenting the seven-year 70+ lb chinook salmon. Finding nacked people in the hot springs on my honeymoon. Exploring and fishing the many rainbow laden Tribs. I could go on and on. I found myself wondering if removing the dams was a good thing. I guess if the wild fish return and flourish than yes but knowing what I do I do not think so. If they ever do open it back up I will be sure to take a drive for old time sake.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1871 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostSun Nov 17, 2019 10:37 pm 
A.A. Thanks for the update. Best.

Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Geography Nerd
Beer Tester



Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Posts: 248 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
Geography Nerd
Beer Tester
PostMon Jan 04, 2021 6:52 am 
Bumping this thread, does anyone know if the FONSI was released this year? I can't find any reference via Google... My in-laws have a house in PA so we've spent more time no the Peninsula the last few years, we hiked to the upper Elwha dam which led me to this post. Thanks again Rod for all your informative posts!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostThu Jan 07, 2021 10:57 am 
In its December 2018 public presentation, the Park planned to sign the FONSI in "August 2019".
Geography Nerd wrote:
Bumping this thread, does anyone know if the FONSI was released this year?
It was not. Over the past two years, NPS has fallen two years behind it's schedule for reopening Olympic Hot Springs Road. rolleyes.gif This is not surprising. In 2005, NPS promised to prevent this from ever happening in the first place. In 2012, it decided to break that promise... and not tell anyone. shakehead.gif

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 12753 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Jan 07, 2021 12:06 pm 
and.... what seems to be the problem now? (didn't we talk about this project like.... two or three years ago??)

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Abert
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 588 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim
Abert
Member
PostThu Aug 03, 2023 4:45 am 
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 12753 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Aug 03, 2023 6:13 am 
So who's calling the shots here? Olympic National Park and the Department of the Interior? Or the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe? The preferred alternative (cutting a re-route around the washout) would have greater impact than constructing an elevated causeway supported by concrete pillars planted within the flood plain? Can somebody please explain that in language that at least partially makes sense? Because that simply doesn't make any sense.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
rubywrangler
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Aug 2015
Posts: 507 | TRs | Pics
rubywrangler
Member
PostThu Aug 03, 2023 10:22 am 
This was posted on the Olympic Peninsula Hikers facebook group a few weeks ago

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6897 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostThu Aug 03, 2023 11:16 am 
Ski wrote:
So who's calling the shots here? Olympic National Park and the Department of the Interior? Or the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe? The preferred alternative (cutting a re-route around the washout) would have greater impact than constructing an elevated causeway supported by concrete pillars planted within the flood plain? Can somebody please explain that in language that at least partially makes sense? Because that simply doesn't make any sense.
The tribe typically calls the shots wink.gif Especially the tribe that successfully called for two dams to be removed. The elevated roadway idea does seem odd, but perhaps with riprap and ELJ's embedded in the bank to slow down the flow the riprap normally would speed up it would be ok - except for the buildup of debris every time it rains (lordy, this reads like tax code or an insurance policy) But it probably is moot anyway, since the update that the tribe doesn't want any road at all now....

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
NightOwl
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2022
Posts: 115 | TRs | Pics
NightOwl
Member
PostThu Aug 03, 2023 11:59 am 
Thank the Great Spirit for the tribes. First it was industrial scale logging, dams, etc. Then it became industrial scale tourism, hiking and camping. These crazy people from across the ocean don't know how to leave things alone or do anything in moderation. I don't see any reason to reopen Elwha Road. It's lovely the way it is: a quiet hike or bike ride along a beautiful river. Why ruin that with cars and busy campgrounds?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 12753 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Aug 03, 2023 12:51 pm 
^ how about because of the first line of the Park's mission statement when it was created in 1938? "For the benefit and enjoyment of the people...." That's the opening line in the legislation that created the Park. Trees, fish, rivers, elk - all come after PEOPLE. That could always be changed, of course, BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS. (But not by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe or any putative "environmental" group.)

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
NightOwl
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2022
Posts: 115 | TRs | Pics
NightOwl
Member
PostThu Aug 03, 2023 1:38 pm 
Ski wrote:
^ how about because of the first line of the Park's mission statement when it was created in 1938? "For the benefit and enjoyment of the people...." That's the opening line in the legislation that created the Park.
I and many other people are benefitting from and enjoying the Elwha just the way it is. And we would enjoy it less if the road is restored. I don't see a problem here...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kw
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Sep 2020
Posts: 84 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue
kw
Member
PostThu Aug 03, 2023 2:20 pm 
Ski wrote:
The preferred alternative (cutting a re-route around the washout) would have greater impact than constructing an elevated causeway supported by concrete pillars planted within the flood plain? Can somebody please explain that in language that at least partially makes sense? Because that simply doesn't make any sense.
I didn't write the EA but presumably the causeway is less impactful because of one or both of the following: 1. It doesn't require a new ROW to be cut through the forest around the current ROW for the road. 2. The causeway would be much less likely to get washed out again, and there's often concerns that future washouts can disrupt salmon passage through sediment, etc.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > ONP Elwha Road Access EA: Public Meeting 11-13-2019; Public Comments Till 12-18-2019
  Happy Birthday CrazyYank!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum