|
January 5, 2001
Superintendent, Olympic National Park
600 East Park Avenue
Port Angeles, WA 98362
Dear Mr. Morris:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Environmental Assessment on Hoh Road Reroute dated Dec. 7,
2000
It is a pleasure to acknowledge consideration of an
alternative to armoring the present location of the road--a
welcome initial step.
However, the EA of December 7, 2000 is insufficient in that
it omits critical information, does not encompass all
practicable alternatives, fails to protect a critical
habitat for a threatened species, ignores the need to
protect a floodplain, with a river migration zone, and
violates the Director's Order #55 which became effective
September 8th, 2000 to take no actions impairing park
resources and values such as wildlife and native animals
without specific congressional directive. We ask that a
supplemental EA be prepared to address the omissions of this
document.
MISSING INFORMATION;
(1) Location and sizes of the larger trees (diameters
over 12 inches) (2) the detail of contours in the corridor
between river and hillside and up the adjacent hillside.
(3) Alternative locations of the road were not presented:
Could it be placed outside the frequently flooded area?
Could it be placed further back from the river? Could it be
routed to leave major trees in the space between the river
and the road? The thought of course is to maximize natural
soil stabilization with existing root systems in place, and
to minimize need for further protections from natural river
actions. How many of those trees and snags could be saved by
use of an alternative route?
(4) Any concerned reviewer needs to know the relative costs
entailed in these alternatives. The latter entail
environmental as well as fiscal costs. Since repeated
buttressing of the road has been necessary, and will
continue to be necessary as long as the project lies in the
floodplain, costs should be projected for the life of the
project. On page 2, paragraph one of the EA is the statement
that at MP 1.55 and MP 1.75 undermined sections of riverbank
remain. Well, the literature on desirable river habitat
describes overhanging riverbanks as beneficial for
anadromous fish. Clearly the Park desires to eliminate this
normal feature. The following paragraph describes the
destination points for visitors-and omits the fact that
anadromous fish have a genetically determined destination
and are vitally dependent on a normally functioning riverine
system to reach it. We submit that people have more options
than the fish.
(5) What are the actual constraints of the wilderness
designation: 200 feet from the road? Are boundary
adjustments allowed? We have two senators now who are
environmentally literate and a Congressional delegation
which is appropriating funds to this state for salmonid
recovery. Is it impossible to conceive that a boundary
adjustment could be added to an appropriations bill to allow
optimal placement of Hoh Road out of the floodplain? Why, in
any event is the road not being relocated at least up to the
boundary of wilderness?
(6) What is the past history of a) Hoh road closures and b)
need for repeated bank protections in the two areas
addressed in this EA? What were the costs?
(7) Please include the Biologic Opinion you requested in
December, 2000 as part of the EA and extend the comment
period on this EA to allow its inclusion in the knowledge
base relating to this project. Professionalism would dictate
that this will include a site visit to check on the
"numerous moss, lichen, liverwort, algae and fungi species"
known to occur in the general area. We note the statement on
page 11: "no federal or state listed threatened or
endangered plant species are known to occur in either
area…"-but this is followed by: "..no systematic and
detailed field surveys have been conducted"...Then the text
tells us that we may well have here uncommon or locally rare
species in small isolated populations which are of
"increasing environmental concern". Page 12 admits that
removal of ground cover may include removal of plant/fungal
species that may be rare. Apparently the knowledge of
amphibians (page 14) is equally vague and should be covered
by site examination before submittal of the (a revised?)
Biologic Opinion.
OTHER COMMENTS
We would hope at this stage of our understanding of
needs of biota in the river that none of the trees proposed
for removal for new road construction, including downed
logs, would leave the floodplain either as direct man made
removal in a clearing operation or due to accelerated
removal when a river rise sweeps away stockpiled logs They
are part of the nutrient system for instream biota , are
feed stock for LWD contribution to the stream over often
many years, as well as being critical to a wide variety of
riparian wildlife. They should neither be exported nor
allowed to be cut, placed on a gravel bar and likely carried
away with flood waters.,
The EA refers to the River Reach Analysis and states: "The
results of this analysis will recommend effective long-term
strategies, such as Engineered Log Jams (ELJs) or rock
barbs, for protection of the Hoh Road within the park." The
author then goes on to exclude the River Reach Analysis from
NEPA review despite indication of a resultant specific
action to result from it in this EA. We think this is not
allowable. I am told that the author did not mean to make
such a statement, that the study is not available and the
report date is uncertain. (verbal, Shirley Hall 1/4/01). We
think that the Reach Analysis should be helpful and required
as adjunct to this EA if indeed the road is to be located in
the vulnerable flood plain. And we certainly wish to comment
if ELJs or rock barbs are to be considered further.
We would also like assurance that rip rap will no longer be
considered acceptable bank defense, and that the road is
situated sufficiently above the river bottom so that this
will not be necessary in the foreseeable future. If the
existing road is washed out in the near future, please
simply close the road until the construction can be done
without damage to the natural resources of the park.
We suggest that long term strategies do indeed still need to
be addressed. Stopgap measures might be closure of the road,
location of new road construction above the flood plain on
the hillside, construction of a one-way road for the limited
distances involved and located back as far as possible from
the river with curves as needed to avoid major trees,
reduction in size of road and side borders, These should
involve careful minimization of tree removal especially at
milepost 1.55 (since some trees will remain at the second
site between road and river)... When the overall Park Plan
is written we suggest rethinking the entire matter of
location of a visitor center for heavy use with some 5 miles
of road all in a floodplain critical area..
ABOUT IMPAIRMENT OF PARK RESOURCES
Generalized knowledge of localized existence of rare and
listed species in the area should lead to specific
examination and a biologic opinion based on at least a site
visit. This document in effect says:: "We didn't find
anything, but then we didn't look either".. That is NOT
resource protection..
On page 21 of the EA, floodplain protection is dismissed
pursuant to Executive Order 11988, stating indeed that
floodplains are to be accorded full protection except
actions may be excepted from compliance for entrance,
access, and internal roads to or within existing units of
the system (not excepted for wetlands). "The Federal
Register publication date of this is 5/28/80.
A more recent directive should take precedence:
Director's Order #55: Interpreting the
National Park Service Organic Act, dated Sept. 8, 2000. It
states this directive "supersedes any conflicting
instructions". At 3.3 :"The 'fundamental purpose' of the
national park system, established by the Organic Act and
reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended,
begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values.
This mandate…applies all the time, with respect to all
park resources and values, even when there is no risk that
any park resources or values may be impaired. NPS managers
must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the
greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on park
resources and values...'' 'The fundamental purpose of all
parks also includes providing for the enjoyment of park
resources and values by the people of the United States. The
'enjoyment' that is contemplated by the statute is the
enjoyment of all the people of the United States, not just
those who visit parks, and so includes enjoyment of park
resources and values by all the people of the United States,
including people who directly experience parks and those who
appreciate them from afar. It also includes deriving benefit
(including scientific knowledge) and inspiration from parks,
as well as other forms of enjoyment…
"Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future
generations of the national parks can be assured only if the
superb quality of park resources and values is left
unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict
between conserving resources and values and providing for
enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant."
"3.4 The prohibition on impairment. While Congress has given
the Service the management discretion to allow certain
impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the
statutory requirement (enforceable by the federal courts)
that the Park Service must leave park resources and values
unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and
specifically provides otherwise. This, the cornerstone of
the Organic Act, establishes the primary responsibility of
the National Park Service….The General Authorities Act
provides that exceptions to the impairment prohibition must
be directly and specifically provided by Congress. These
statutory exceptions must be found in the express terms of
legislation, not inferred from it."
At 3.6 Park resources and values are defined. They do not
relate to numbers of visitors, nor do they relate to
collection of entry fees.
3.6 "The 'park resources and values' that are subject to the
non-impairment standard include:
* the park's scenery, natural and historic objects, and
wildlife, including, to the extent present in the park the
ecological, biological and physical processes that created
the park and continue to act upon it…and native plants
and animals…
* Park resources and values do not include any attributes of
a park whose conservation is not among the purposes for
which a park was included in the national park system or is
being managed. For example, the term generally does not
include nonnative species or man-made structures that are
not historic or prehistoric unless their conservation is a
specific additional purpose for which an individual park was
established."
Robert Stanton did a good job on this directive. What was
the language denoting ONP a biosphere reserve?
Yours truly,
Eloise Kailin
President, PPF
CC WDFW, US Army CoE, USFWS, NMFS,
WDFW, WDOE, Olympic Park Associates.
|
Olympic
National Park was planning to riprap the Hoh River once
again last August--protecting Hoh Road to the detriment of
salmonid habitat. The Park's second proposed solution
involves moving the road further from the river, but still
within the channel migration zone. This situation would
likely require the same sort of riprap plan in the future.
The Park did not present alternative road locations. Nor did
it bother to determine what other listed species would be
impacted if the road were to be moved within the flood
plain. Removing standing and downed trees and forest duff
would result in significant impact. The Park has an
incentive to maintain the road due to the quarter million
people making the drive to the Hoh Visitor Center annually.
However this is not part of the Park's mandate as outlined
in Director's Order
#55: Interpreting the National
Park Service Organic Act, dated Sept. 8, 2000. This
directive provides us with a tool to obtain a more
permanent, more benign solution of the road problem, and
consequently, preservation of park values for future
generations.
PPF
Home