Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Final Environmental Impact Statement Olympic National Park, Clallam County, WA; Notice of Availability, 42096-42098 [05-14353]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
42096
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Availability of the Draft
General Management Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Niobrara National Scenic River, NE
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, the National Park Service
(NPS) announces the availability of the
draft general management plan and
environmental impact statement (GMP/
EIS) for the Niobrara National Scenic
River (Scenic River).
DATES: The GMP/EIS will remain
available for public review for 60 days
following the publishing of the notice of
availability in the Federal Register by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Public meetings will be held in the
cities of Omaha, Valentine, Ainsworth,
and Lincoln, Nebraska. Meeting places
and times will be announced by the
local media.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the GMP/EIS are
available by request by writing to the
superintendent at Niobrara National
Scenic River, P.O. Box 591, O’Neill,
Nebraska 68763; by telephoning the
park office at (402) 336–3970; or by email, niob_administration@nps.gov. The
document is also available to be picked
up in person at the Scenic River’s
offices in O’Neill and Valentine. Finally,
the document can be found on the
Internet at the NPS Planning,
Environment, and Public Comment
(PEPC) Web site at: https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/publicHome.cfm.
This Web site allows the public to
review and comment directly on this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent, Niobrara National
Scenic River, P.O. Box 591, O’Neill,
Nebraska 68763.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Scenic River is an area of the national
park system. The Scenic River extends
76 miles in Nebraska between the
Borman Bridge southeast of Valentine to
the Nebraska Highway 137 bridge north
of Newport.
The GMP/EIS describes and analyzes
the environmental impacts of the
proposed management action and one
other action alternative for the future
management direction of the park, and
the environmental impacts of the
boundary alternatives. A no-action
management alternative is also
evaluated.
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:42 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
Our practice is to make comments,
including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public
review. Individual respondents may
request that we withhold their home
address from the record, which we will
honor to the extent allowable by law.
There may also be circumstances where
we would withhold from the record a
respondent’s identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish us to withhold your
name and/or address, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of
your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We
will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials or
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Dated: April 29, 2005.
Ernest Quintana,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
Editorial Note: This document was
received in the Office of the Federal Register
on July 18, 2005.
[FR Doc. 05–14352 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–BM–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for the Elwha
Ecosystem Restoration
Implementation Final Environmental
Impact Statement Olympic National
Park, Clallam County, WA; Notice of
Availability
Summary: Pursuant to section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as
amended) and corresponding Council of
Environmental Quality implementing
regulations (40 CFR part 1500–1508),
the National Park Service, Department
of the Interior and its cooperating
agencies have finalized a supplement to
the Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration
Implementation final environmental
impact statement (1996 Implementation
EIS). Two dams built in the early 1900s
block the Elwha River and substantially
limit anadromous fish passage. A 1996
Implementation EIS (second of two EISs
that examined how best to restore the
Elwha River ecosystem and native
anadromous fishery in Olympic
National Park) identified dam removal
as the preferred option and identified a
particular set of actions to remove the
dams. The release of sediment from
behind the dams would result in
sometimes severe impacts to water
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
quality or the reliability of supply to
downstream users during the 3–5 year
dam removal impact period, which the
1996 Implementation EIS proposed
mitigating through a series of specific
measures (see below). However, since
1996, when the Record of Decision was
signed, new research and changes
unrelated to the project have
necessitated re-analysis of these
measures. The primary purpose of this
supplemental EIS (SEIS) is to analyze
the potential impacts of a new set of
water quality and supply related
mitigation measures.
Background: Elwha Dam was built on
the Elwha River in 1911 and Glines
Canyon Dam in 1925, limiting
anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 miles
of river and blocking access to more
than 70 miles of Elwha River mainstem
and tributary habitat. The two dams and
their associated reservoirs have also
inundated and degraded important
riverine and terrestrial habitat and
severely affected fisheries habitat
through increased temperatures,
reduced nutrients, the absence of
spawning gravels downstream and other
changes. Consequently, salmon and
steelhead populations in the river have
been considerably reduced or
eliminated, and the Elwha River
ecosystem within Olympic National
Park significantly and adversely altered.
In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha
River Ecosystem and Fisheries
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 102–495)
directing the Secretary of the Interior to
fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem
and native anadromous fisheries but
also protecting municipal and industrial
water users from the possible adverse
impacts of dam removal. As noted
above, the decisions associated with this
process indicated removal of both dams
was needed to fully restore the
ecosystem. Impacts to water quality will
result from the release of sediment
which has accumulated behind the
dams. Impacts to water supply will
result from the release of fine sediment
(i.e., silts and clays). These sediments
can reduce yield by clogging the gravel
that overlays subsurface intakes during
periods of high turbidities. Increases in
flooding or flood stage are also a likely
result of dam removal, as sediments
would replenish and raise the existing
riverbed back to its pre-dam condition.
The 1996 Implementation EIS
proposed and analyzed numerous
mitigation and flood controll measures
to protect quality and ensure supply for
each of the downstream users, which
included:
• The installation of an infiltration
gallery to collect water filtered from the
riverbed;
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices
• Open channel treatment of this
water for industrial customers;
• Closure of the state chinook rearing
channel during and for years following
dam removal, with chinook production
transferred to another state facility;
• The installation of a second
subsurface Ranney collector on the
opposite shore to maintain yield during
meander away from the existing
collector;
• A temporary package treatment
plant to filter water from the Ranney
wells during dam removal;
• Expansion of the tribal hatchery
and of its infiltration gallery and drilling
of groundwater wells to facilitate
protection and production of Elwha
anadromous fish for restoration, and;
• On-site flood protection for the Dry
Creek Water Association wellfield, or
connection of these users to the Point
Angeles water system;
• The development of a mounded
septic system on the Lower Elwha
Klallam Reservation; and
• Strengthening and extension of the
federal levee and other smaller levees
and flood control structures.
Continued study by the cooperating
agencies since the 1996 Implementation
EIS was finalized revealed the potential
for unforeseen difficulties with some of
the mitigation facilities, and identified
different measures from those analyzed
to resolve these difficulties. Further
refining of the expected flood stage
following the restoring of riverbed
sediments also showed it would be
higher in some areas of the river and
lower in others than the original
modeling predicted. In addition,
changes in user needs resulting from
factors unrelated to the project required
a new look at some of the mitigation
measures. For example, chinook salmon
and bull trout have both been listed as
threatened since 1997, resulting in the
requirement to keep the state rearing
facility open during dam removal. Also,
the city of Port Angeles must now meet
new standards for the treatment of its
municipal supplies. In addition, an
industrial customer (Rayonier) which
required very high quality water for its
operation has since closed. The lowlying lands of the Reservation have also
been developed to such a degree since
1996 that a small mounded septic
system would not be adequate.
Proposal and Alternatives: The 1996
Implementation EIS focused on dam
removal and sediment management and
analyzed two action alternatives; it was
tiered to an earlier programmatic EIS,
which examined four options and a ‘‘no
action’’ alternative for restoring the
Elwha River ecosystem. Due to this
extensive consideration of the overall
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:42 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
project and its alternatives, the SEIS
only analyzed the most preferable
feasible alternative for mitigating
impacts to water quality and supply in
some cases. This is true of the facilities
that would supply treated water for
industrial, hatchery and municipal use.
When several options with relatively
equal value in protecting users from
impacts to water quality or from
flooding were available, each was
analyzed in the SEIS. These include
maintaining water quality for Dry Creek
Water Association and Elwha Heights
homeowners, upgrading the tribal
hatchery, treating tribal wastewater, and
providing flood protection mitigation
for the tribal and other residents along
the river. A discussion of alternatives
for industrial, hatchery and municipal
use that were not selected for analysis,
and rationales for not carrying them
further, is provided in the SEIS
(Chapt.2) and in the Elwha River Water
Quality Mitigation Project Planning
Report (available at https://www.nps.gov/
olym/elwha/home.htm).
As documented in the Draft and Final
SEIS, the proposal is deemed to be the
‘‘environmentally preferred’’ alternative;
and it includes the following:
• The use of surface water rather than
a subsurface infiltration gallery and
additional Ranney well to supply the
city’s municipal and industrial
customers, the tribal hatchery and the
state chinook rearing channel. This
change is intended to prevent
‘‘blinding’’, which research after 1996
found was likely to occur in any kind
of subsurface water collecting facility.
Blinding clogs and effectively seals the
surface with fine sediment for a period
of time, and can substantially reduce
water yield.
• Removal of the existing rock dam
and intake structure that currently
supplies the city’s industrial customers,
and replacement with a graded fish
riffle and weir structure to pass fish
(‘‘Elwha Water Surface Intake’’ in the
SEIS) and pool water. The existing
intake will be replaced.
• A sediment removal facility
(‘‘Elwha Water Treatment Facility’’ in
the SEIS) built in the location of the
existing industrial treatment channel on
the east bank of the river, which will
receive water for treatment from the
weir and intake described above. This
facility will supply industrial
customers, and also at times a new
water treatment facility during the 3–5
year dam removal impact period.
• A new permanent water treatment
facility in Port Angeles (‘‘Port Angeles
Water Treatment Facility’’ in the SEIS)
adjacent to the city’s existing landfill
area, which will receive water from the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42097
sediment removal facility during and for
a period of time following dam removal,
and subsequently from the city’s
existing Ranney collector.
• Flood protection of the Dry Creek
Water Association’s existing wellfield.
• Connecting the Elwha Heights
Water Association to the Dry Creek
Water Association water delivery
system to protect water quality of Elwha
Heights water users.
• Relocation of the tribal hatchery to
the Halberd parcel on Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribal land, with water
supplied from the Elwha Water
Treatment Plant during the sediment
release impact period.
• Keeping the state chinook rearing
channel open during dam removal with
water from the Elwha Water Treatment
Plant during the sediment release
impact period and creating a rearing
pond on nearby Morse Creek as an
additional rearing location for use
during dam removal.
• Raising the federal levee an average
of 3.3 feet (as compared to 2.5 feet in the
1996 Implementation EIS) and armoring
with rock riprap where needed. The
federal levee would be extended both
north and south to provide additional
protection from flooding following dam
removal. The northward extension
would be 450 feet in length; the
southward extension would be a 1,650foot route south and southeast across
the Halberd property. This route
includes use (raising and strengthening)
of an existing levee haul road. A second
levee across the river would also be
raised.
• A series of small-scale flood
protection measures, such as raising
wellheads, dikes, roads or property to
protect private citizens and existing
facilities (Ranney collector, state WDFW
fish-rearing facility, etc.) would be built.
Most are similar or identical to those
already analyzed in the 1996
Implementation EIS.
• Providing an on-reservation
wastewater collection and treatment
system to handle wastewater generated
on the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s
reservation.
• Sections removed from Glines Dam
would be transported to a private
facility to be crushed and recycled if
economics indicate this would be
advantageous. If not, concrete would be
disposed of in open pit mines and other
locations evaluated in the 1996
Implementation EIS.
• A trail, overlook and chemical toilet
available to all (including disabled)
visitors would be built to observe the
removal of Elwha Dam and offer future
interpretive opportunities.
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
42098
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Notices
• Property and/or conservation
easements would be purchased to offset
impacts of dam removal to trumpeter
swans.
Each of these facilities is funded
wholly or in part by the federal
government to the extent that they
provide mitigation from the effects of
dam removal. Additional funding may
be provided by homeowners groups or
by other interested parties if protection
or improvement beyond that resulting
directly from dam removal is desired.
The No Action alternative is the same
alternative as was discussed in the 1996
Implementation EIS; that is, no dam
removal would take place. Because the
dams would remain, water and flooding
mitigation would not be needed.
Public Response to Draft SEIS: The
draft SEIS was released for public
review and comment in January 2005.
Comments were received until March
15, 2005. The NPS received 8 letters and
an Enviromental Protection Agency
(EPA) evaluation of LO, or lack of
objections (also noticed in the Federal
Register on April 8, 2005). Commenters
included the Washington Department of
Ecology, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, the Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribe, the city of Port Angeles,
Dry Creek Water Association, Inc.,
American Whitewater, Trout Unlimited,
and Mr. Russ Busch, Tribal Attorney.
Synopsis of Comments and Changes
in Final SEIS: The state agencies
primarily reminded the NPS that
various permits to begin dam removal
would be required. Three individuals
from the Tribe submitted requests for
changed language reflecting updates
since the draft SEIS was released.
Because the Tribe and city of Port
Angeles have been unable to reach a
final agreement on the acceptance of
tribal wastewater to the city’s treatment
facility, a second alternative was added.
This alternative would be located on
tribal land and would use a membrane
bio-reactor technology and constructed
wetland to treat wastewater and
minimize impact of any effluent.
Effluent would be allowed to infiltrate
into soil underlying the wetland, or
would be released into the Elwha River.
This is the preferred alternative, rather
than connecting to the city of Port
Angeles’ wastewater treatment facility.
The Tribe has also evaluated two
different alignments for extending the
federal levee to the south that would
better mitigate impacts from flooding at
this end of the reservation. These have
been added to the text of the final SEIS,
although the preferred alternative is one
that was analyzed in the draft SEIS.
Additional information on fisheries and
vegetation issues that have no bearing
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:42 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
on the decision of a preferred
alternative, but which add to the
completeness of the final SEIS, was
suggested by the third tribal individual.
The city of Port Angeles’ comments
were wide ranging: some requested
additional clarification on measures to
mitigate impacts (to industrial users, for
example); others mentioned permitting
and final clearances that would be
required from the city; some asked for
additional impact information, such as
to Orca whales, socioeconomics, and
current traffic conditions; and others
debated accuracy of statements in the
draft SEIS. Although additional impact
information and clarity on mitigation
measures has been added where NPS
felt it was incomplete or would be
helpful, no changes to the preferred
alternative were necessitated as a result
of the city’s comments. Mr. Busch asked
for additional information to be added
to the description and impacts of the No
Action alternative, as well as to the
impacts of the preferred alternative. The
added information would not affect
selection of the preferred alternative or
alter it in any way. American
Whitewater asked that the safety of the
new surface diversion facility (the
Elwha Surface Water Intake) be
evaluated so that access for recreational
uses would be maintained along the
entire river, and Trout Unlimited
indicated support for several of the
features of the preferred alternative. The
diversion would be able to pass kayaks
and other craft safely, and signs to
indicate any hazard areas would be used
to direct recreational users.
Distribution of Final SEIS: Those who
commented during the review period on
the draft SEIS will receive a complete
final SEIS document, as will agencies
and others on the park mailing list (as
noted in chapter 5 of the final SEIS).
Others may request a paper copy of the
final SEIS, a CD of the final SEIS and/
or a CD of the full 1996 Implementation
EIS which the subject document
supplements. Please specify which of
these documents/CDs is desired when
contacting the Elwha Project
Management Office. Finally, both the
final SEIS and 1996 Implementation EIS
will be posted on the Elwha project Web
site at https://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/
home.htm.
Decision Process: Following release of
the final SEIS the NPS will wait for a
minimum period of at least 30 days
from the date this notice is published in
the Federal Register before making a
final decision on which mitigation
facilities it will select. Therefore if there
are interested persons or organizations
wishing to express any remaining
concerns or comments on the content of
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the final SEIS, they should send them in
writing to Dr. Brian Winter, Elwha
Project Manager, at 826 East Front
Street, Ste.A, Port Angeles, WA 98362;
telephone inquires may be directed to
(360) 565–1320. Faxed or electronic
transmittals will be accept also
(electronic comments should be sent to
Brian_Winter@nps.gov, and faxes may
be sent to (360) 565–1325). If
substantive new information is
submitted that both (1) could not have
been raised during scoping or the
review of the draft SEIS and (2) that has
bearing on the selection of the preferred
mitigation alternative, the NPS will
consider such information.
Respondents are reminded that
decisions or facts in the 1996
Implementation EIS are not subject to
public review at this time. If any
persons or organizations choose to
respond, please include name and
address (note that names and addresses
of commenters become part of the
public record). If individuals
commenting request that their name or/
and address be withheld from public
disclosure, it will be honored to the
extent allowable by law. Such requests
must be stated prominently in the
beginning of the comments. There also
may be circumstances wherein the NPS
will withhold from the record a
respondent’s identity, as allowable by
law. As always: the NPS will make
available to public inspection all
submissions from organizations or
businesses and from persons identifying
themselves as representatives or
officials of organizations and
businesses; and, anonymous comments
may not be considered.
As a delegated EIS, the official
responsible for the final decision is the
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
Subsequently the official responsible for
implementing the selected mitigation
alternative is the Superintendent,
Olympic National Park.
Dated: June 3, 2005.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05–14353 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–KY–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
General Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement,
Lincoln Home National Historic Site,
Illinois
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42096-42098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14353]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Elwha
Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Final Environmental Impact
Statement Olympic National Park, Clallam County, WA; Notice of
Availability
Summary: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended) and
corresponding Council of Environmental Quality implementing regulations
(40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service, Department of the
Interior and its cooperating agencies have finalized a supplement to
the Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation final
environmental impact statement (1996 Implementation EIS). Two dams
built in the early 1900s block the Elwha River and substantially limit
anadromous fish passage. A 1996 Implementation EIS (second of two EISs
that examined how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native
anadromous fishery in Olympic National Park) identified dam removal as
the preferred option and identified a particular set of actions to
remove the dams. The release of sediment from behind the dams would
result in sometimes severe impacts to water quality or the reliability
of supply to downstream users during the 3-5 year dam removal impact
period, which the 1996 Implementation EIS proposed mitigating through a
series of specific measures (see below). However, since 1996, when the
Record of Decision was signed, new research and changes unrelated to
the project have necessitated re-analysis of these measures. The
primary purpose of this supplemental EIS (SEIS) is to analyze the
potential impacts of a new set of water quality and supply related
mitigation measures.
Background: Elwha Dam was built on the Elwha River in 1911 and
Glines Canyon Dam in 1925, limiting anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9
miles of river and blocking access to more than 70 miles of Elwha River
mainstem and tributary habitat. The two dams and their associated
reservoirs have also inundated and degraded important riverine and
terrestrial habitat and severely affected fisheries habitat through
increased temperatures, reduced nutrients, the absence of spawning
gravels downstream and other changes. Consequently, salmon and
steelhead populations in the river have been considerably reduced or
eliminated, and the Elwha River ecosystem within Olympic National Park
significantly and adversely altered.
In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 102-495) directing the Secretary of the
Interior to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native
anadromous fisheries but also protecting municipal and industrial water
users from the possible adverse impacts of dam removal. As noted above,
the decisions associated with this process indicated removal of both
dams was needed to fully restore the ecosystem. Impacts to water
quality will result from the release of sediment which has accumulated
behind the dams. Impacts to water supply will result from the release
of fine sediment (i.e., silts and clays). These sediments can reduce
yield by clogging the gravel that overlays subsurface intakes during
periods of high turbidities. Increases in flooding or flood stage are
also a likely result of dam removal, as sediments would replenish and
raise the existing riverbed back to its pre-dam condition.
The 1996 Implementation EIS proposed and analyzed numerous
mitigation and flood controll measures to protect quality and ensure
supply for each of the downstream users, which included:
The installation of an infiltration gallery to collect
water filtered from the riverbed;
[[Page 42097]]
Open channel treatment of this water for industrial
customers;
Closure of the state chinook rearing channel during and
for years following dam removal, with chinook production transferred to
another state facility;
The installation of a second subsurface Ranney collector
on the opposite shore to maintain yield during meander away from the
existing collector;
A temporary package treatment plant to filter water from
the Ranney wells during dam removal;
Expansion of the tribal hatchery and of its infiltration
gallery and drilling of groundwater wells to facilitate protection and
production of Elwha anadromous fish for restoration, and;
On-site flood protection for the Dry Creek Water
Association wellfield, or connection of these users to the Point
Angeles water system;
The development of a mounded septic system on the Lower
Elwha Klallam Reservation; and
Strengthening and extension of the federal levee and other
smaller levees and flood control structures.
Continued study by the cooperating agencies since the 1996
Implementation EIS was finalized revealed the potential for unforeseen
difficulties with some of the mitigation facilities, and identified
different measures from those analyzed to resolve these difficulties.
Further refining of the expected flood stage following the restoring of
riverbed sediments also showed it would be higher in some areas of the
river and lower in others than the original modeling predicted. In
addition, changes in user needs resulting from factors unrelated to the
project required a new look at some of the mitigation measures. For
example, chinook salmon and bull trout have both been listed as
threatened since 1997, resulting in the requirement to keep the state
rearing facility open during dam removal. Also, the city of Port
Angeles must now meet new standards for the treatment of its municipal
supplies. In addition, an industrial customer (Rayonier) which required
very high quality water for its operation has since closed. The low-
lying lands of the Reservation have also been developed to such a
degree since 1996 that a small mounded septic system would not be
adequate.
Proposal and Alternatives: The 1996 Implementation EIS focused on
dam removal and sediment management and analyzed two action
alternatives; it was tiered to an earlier programmatic EIS, which
examined four options and a ``no action'' alternative for restoring the
Elwha River ecosystem. Due to this extensive consideration of the
overall project and its alternatives, the SEIS only analyzed the most
preferable feasible alternative for mitigating impacts to water quality
and supply in some cases. This is true of the facilities that would
supply treated water for industrial, hatchery and municipal use. When
several options with relatively equal value in protecting users from
impacts to water quality or from flooding were available, each was
analyzed in the SEIS. These include maintaining water quality for Dry
Creek Water Association and Elwha Heights homeowners, upgrading the
tribal hatchery, treating tribal wastewater, and providing flood
protection mitigation for the tribal and other residents along the
river. A discussion of alternatives for industrial, hatchery and
municipal use that were not selected for analysis, and rationales for
not carrying them further, is provided in the SEIS (Chapt.2) and in the
Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report (available
at https://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).
As documented in the Draft and Final SEIS, the proposal is deemed
to be the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative; and it includes
the following:
The use of surface water rather than a subsurface
infiltration gallery and additional Ranney well to supply the city's
municipal and industrial customers, the tribal hatchery and the state
chinook rearing channel. This change is intended to prevent
``blinding'', which research after 1996 found was likely to occur in
any kind of subsurface water collecting facility. Blinding clogs and
effectively seals the surface with fine sediment for a period of time,
and can substantially reduce water yield.
Removal of the existing rock dam and intake structure that
currently supplies the city's industrial customers, and replacement
with a graded fish riffle and weir structure to pass fish (``Elwha
Water Surface Intake'' in the SEIS) and pool water. The existing intake
will be replaced.
A sediment removal facility (``Elwha Water Treatment
Facility'' in the SEIS) built in the location of the existing
industrial treatment channel on the east bank of the river, which will
receive water for treatment from the weir and intake described above.
This facility will supply industrial customers, and also at times a new
water treatment facility during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period.
A new permanent water treatment facility in Port Angeles
(``Port Angeles Water Treatment Facility'' in the SEIS) adjacent to the
city's existing landfill area, which will receive water from the
sediment removal facility during and for a period of time following dam
removal, and subsequently from the city's existing Ranney collector.
Flood protection of the Dry Creek Water Association's
existing wellfield.
Connecting the Elwha Heights Water Association to the Dry
Creek Water Association water delivery system to protect water quality
of Elwha Heights water users.
Relocation of the tribal hatchery to the Halberd parcel on
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal land, with water supplied from the Elwha
Water Treatment Plant during the sediment release impact period.
Keeping the state chinook rearing channel open during dam
removal with water from the Elwha Water Treatment Plant during the
sediment release impact period and creating a rearing pond on nearby
Morse Creek as an additional rearing location for use during dam
removal.
Raising the federal levee an average of 3.3 feet (as
compared to 2.5 feet in the 1996 Implementation EIS) and armoring with
rock riprap where needed. The federal levee would be extended both
north and south to provide additional protection from flooding
following dam removal. The northward extension would be 450 feet in
length; the southward extension would be a 1,650-foot route south and
southeast across the Halberd property. This route includes use (raising
and strengthening) of an existing levee haul road. A second levee
across the river would also be raised.
A series of small-scale flood protection measures, such as
raising wellheads, dikes, roads or property to protect private citizens
and existing facilities (Ranney collector, state WDFW fish-rearing
facility, etc.) would be built. Most are similar or identical to those
already analyzed in the 1996 Implementation EIS.
Providing an on-reservation wastewater collection and
treatment system to handle wastewater generated on the Lower Elwha
Klallam Tribe's reservation.
Sections removed from Glines Dam would be transported to a
private facility to be crushed and recycled if economics indicate this
would be advantageous. If not, concrete would be disposed of in open
pit mines and other locations evaluated in the 1996 Implementation EIS.
A trail, overlook and chemical toilet available to all
(including disabled) visitors would be built to observe the removal of
Elwha Dam and offer future interpretive opportunities.
[[Page 42098]]
Property and/or conservation easements would be purchased
to offset impacts of dam removal to trumpeter swans.
Each of these facilities is funded wholly or in part by the federal
government to the extent that they provide mitigation from the effects
of dam removal. Additional funding may be provided by homeowners groups
or by other interested parties if protection or improvement beyond that
resulting directly from dam removal is desired.
The No Action alternative is the same alternative as was discussed
in the 1996 Implementation EIS; that is, no dam removal would take
place. Because the dams would remain, water and flooding mitigation
would not be needed.
Public Response to Draft SEIS: The draft SEIS was released for
public review and comment in January 2005. Comments were received until
March 15, 2005. The NPS received 8 letters and an Enviromental
Protection Agency (EPA) evaluation of LO, or lack of objections (also
noticed in the Federal Register on April 8, 2005). Commenters included
the Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural
Resources, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the city of Port Angeles, Dry
Creek Water Association, Inc., American Whitewater, Trout Unlimited,
and Mr. Russ Busch, Tribal Attorney.
Synopsis of Comments and Changes in Final SEIS: The state agencies
primarily reminded the NPS that various permits to begin dam removal
would be required. Three individuals from the Tribe submitted requests
for changed language reflecting updates since the draft SEIS was
released. Because the Tribe and city of Port Angeles have been unable
to reach a final agreement on the acceptance of tribal wastewater to
the city's treatment facility, a second alternative was added. This
alternative would be located on tribal land and would use a membrane
bio-reactor technology and constructed wetland to treat wastewater and
minimize impact of any effluent. Effluent would be allowed to
infiltrate into soil underlying the wetland, or would be released into
the Elwha River. This is the preferred alternative, rather than
connecting to the city of Port Angeles' wastewater treatment facility.
The Tribe has also evaluated two different alignments for extending the
federal levee to the south that would better mitigate impacts from
flooding at this end of the reservation. These have been added to the
text of the final SEIS, although the preferred alternative is one that
was analyzed in the draft SEIS. Additional information on fisheries and
vegetation issues that have no bearing on the decision of a preferred
alternative, but which add to the completeness of the final SEIS, was
suggested by the third tribal individual. The city of Port Angeles'
comments were wide ranging: some requested additional clarification on
measures to mitigate impacts (to industrial users, for example); others
mentioned permitting and final clearances that would be required from
the city; some asked for additional impact information, such as to Orca
whales, socioeconomics, and current traffic conditions; and others
debated accuracy of statements in the draft SEIS. Although additional
impact information and clarity on mitigation measures has been added
where NPS felt it was incomplete or would be helpful, no changes to the
preferred alternative were necessitated as a result of the city's
comments. Mr. Busch asked for additional information to be added to the
description and impacts of the No Action alternative, as well as to the
impacts of the preferred alternative. The added information would not
affect selection of the preferred alternative or alter it in any way.
American Whitewater asked that the safety of the new surface diversion
facility (the Elwha Surface Water Intake) be evaluated so that access
for recreational uses would be maintained along the entire river, and
Trout Unlimited indicated support for several of the features of the
preferred alternative. The diversion would be able to pass kayaks and
other craft safely, and signs to indicate any hazard areas would be
used to direct recreational users.
Distribution of Final SEIS: Those who commented during the review
period on the draft SEIS will receive a complete final SEIS document,
as will agencies and others on the park mailing list (as noted in
chapter 5 of the final SEIS). Others may request a paper copy of the
final SEIS, a CD of the final SEIS and/or a CD of the full 1996
Implementation EIS which the subject document supplements. Please
specify which of these documents/CDs is desired when contacting the
Elwha Project Management Office. Finally, both the final SEIS and 1996
Implementation EIS will be posted on the Elwha project Web site at
https://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm.
Decision Process: Following release of the final SEIS the NPS will
wait for a minimum period of at least 30 days from the date this notice
is published in the Federal Register before making a final decision on
which mitigation facilities it will select. Therefore if there are
interested persons or organizations wishing to express any remaining
concerns or comments on the content of the final SEIS, they should send
them in writing to Dr. Brian Winter, Elwha Project Manager, at 826 East
Front Street, Ste.A, Port Angeles, WA 98362; telephone inquires may be
directed to (360) 565-1320. Faxed or electronic transmittals will be
accept also (electronic comments should be sent to Brian--
Winter@nps.gov, and faxes may be sent to (360) 565-1325). If
substantive new information is submitted that both (1) could not have
been raised during scoping or the review of the draft SEIS and (2) that
has bearing on the selection of the preferred mitigation alternative,
the NPS will consider such information.
Respondents are reminded that decisions or facts in the 1996
Implementation EIS are not subject to public review at this time. If
any persons or organizations choose to respond, please include name and
address (note that names and addresses of commenters become part of the
public record). If individuals commenting request that their name or/
and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to
the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently
in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances
wherein the NPS will withhold from the record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. As always: the NPS will make available to public
inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from
persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be
considered.
As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision
is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. Subsequently the
official responsible for implementing the selected mitigation
alternative is the Superintendent, Olympic National Park.
Dated: June 3, 2005.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-14353 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-KY-P
