Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment and Scoping; President's Park South Security Re-Design and Landscaping Preservation and Permanent Closure of E Street, the Ellipse Roadways, South Executive Avenue, State Place and West South Executive Avenue, and Hamilton Place and East South Executive Avenue, to Unauthorized Vehicular Use
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321, (NEPA), and applicable regulations and policies, the National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Secret Service (USSS), as joint lead agencies, are preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA will aid the USSS in deciding whether to permanently close E Street, South Executive Avenue, and the Ellipse roadways within President's Park South to unauthorized vehicular traffic, and State Place and West South Executive Avenue and adjacent sidewalks (contiguous to First Division Monument) and Hamilton Place and East South Executive Avenue and adjacent sidewalks (contiguous to Sherman Park) to unauthorized vehicular and unauthorized pedestrian traffic. The EA will further inform the USSS as it considers replacing existing security elements in the area, such as jersey barriers, provisional guard booths, canopy tents, bike rack, concrete planters and standing canine vehicles. These security elements, while effective, are visually unattractive and may detract from the iconic and historic nature of the area. The USSS would seek to install security elements that are both durable and more aesthetic at the vehicle checkpoints and along the street closures. The NPS will utilize the EA to assist in its consideration of landscape and infrastructure changes to President's Park South that respond to USSS security requirements and conform to the area's historic features, its iconic status and popularity as a visitor destination. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) is a cooperating agency in this EA and is assisting in the development of potential alternatives by holding a limited competition for design concepts that integrate USSS security requirements and NPS cultural landscape preservation policies and guidelines. Other government agencies are invited to serve as cooperating agencies. Interested agencies are asked to contact the Office of the National Park Service Liaison to the White House at (202) 619-6344 at the NPS as early as possible in this process. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), including NHPA Section 106, and other laws and requirements, will be coordinated with this EA process, and government agencies that are affected by the proposed actions or have special expertise will be consulted, whether or not they are cooperating agencies. This notice also serves as an announcement of scoping on both proposed actions, and comments are sought from the public, government agencies and other interested persons and organizations. Scoping is used to gain insight into the issues to be addressed and to identify other significant issues related to the proposed actions. For comments to be most helpful to the scoping process, they must be received within 45 days of this notice. During scoping, a public meeting will be held to present information and obtain input from attendees. The NPS and USSS will describe the proposed actions and how the planning will be conducted, and NCPC will describe the design concepts competition it is conducting. All comments submitted during scoping, including at the meeting, will be considered by both the NPS and USSS. The date for the public meeting will be announced through the news media and through the National Park Service's Planning, Environment and Public Comment Web site. [When the meeting date is announced, if you require additional information or special assistance to attend and participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of the National Park Service Liaison to the White House at (202) 619-6344.] There is always the possibility that the NPS and USSS might proceed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed actions instead of an EA. If this occurs, comments submitted now will be considered for any EIS that is developed.
Cattle Point Road Relocation; Draft Environmental Impact Statement; San Juan Island National Historical Park; San Juan County, WA; Notice of Availability
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service (NPS), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation, co-lead agencies for this project, in cooperation with San Juan County, Washington and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, have prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for alternatives designed to respond to coastal bluff erosion which threatens Cattle Point Road located in San Juan Island National Historical Park (Park), Washington. The DEIS identifies and analyzes three ``action'' alternatives for road realignment that respond to agency planning requirements and to the public's concerns and relevant environmental issues, identified during the scoping and early public involvement process. The potential environmental consequences of the alternatives, and appropriate measures to minimize or avoid harm, are identified and analyzed in the DEIS. An ``environmentally preferred'' alternative is also identified. Background: A portion of the Cattle Point Road which terminates on the southeastern tip of San Juan Island is threatened by coastal erosion at the base of the slope traversed by the road. This road passes through the Park and serves residences on a peninsular area of the island known as Cattle Point, as well provides public access to the Cattle Point Natural Resource Conservation Area, managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). If erosion continues unabated, the roadway eventually will fail, disrupting vehicular access to these areas. The road is currently maintained by San Juan County (County); the project area of potential effect is primarily within the Park. The entire Park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a National Historic Landmark. A Notice of Intent to begin the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis for the project was published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2004. The NPS and the FHWA, along with the County and the DNR, organized an interdisciplinary team consisting of members from the four agencies. A previous scoping effort begun by the County in 2001 was incorporated into the current project. Public engagement was initiated through a newsletter and news release, followed by two public meetings held February 18, 2004, on San Juan Island. Project team members presented information and gathered feedback and ideas on preliminary alternatives and potential environmental issues. Approximately 30 public comments were received during the scoping period ending March 19, 2004. The project team subsequently developed a Scoping Report, which described the range of potential alternatives identified for more detailed analysis, as well as alternatives dismissed from further consideration (including armoring the base of the slope in lieu of road realignment options). The Scoping Report included comments and agency responses as appendices. On June 17, 2004, a notice was sent to the 302-member project mailing list regarding release of the Scoping Report; additionally, a press release was issued and a notice posted on the Park website announcing availability of the document. In April of 2005, a newsletter was sent to the project mailing list summarizing progress on the DEIS to date, including the preliminary identification of a preferred alternative, completion of a Cultural Resource Survey and a Tunnel Feasibility Study, and plans for rare plant surveys. The project team made a presentation summarizing planning to date to the San Juan Board of County Commissioners in January, 2006; the meeting was open to the public. A plant survey report was also completed during January, 2006. Letters were sent to culturally affiliated tribes on March 9, 2006, with copies of the Cultural Resource Survey and inviting their comments on the project. The FHWA, on behalf of the project team, sent a letter to the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on May 28, 2009, with a recommendation of No Adverse Effect and Sec. 4(f) de minimis determination. Concurrence was received from the SHPO on June 23, 2009. Proposal and Alternatives: Alternative A: No ActionThe existing use, maintenance, and management associated with the road would continue without change. This alternative provides a baseline of current conditions to aid comparison and analysis of the ``action'' alternatives. Under this alternative, erosion eventually could cause the road to fail, disrupting vehicular access to residential properties in the Cattle Point Estates and Cape San Juan neighborhoods and to public lands east of the eroding bluff. Since measurements began in 2002, erosion has moved approximately 14 feet closer to the guard rail and is currently 32 feet from the guard rail at its closest point. The continued life span of the road is difficult to predict, however large storm events could potentially make the road unsafe in a few years life expectancy (relative to coastal erosion) is estimated at approximately 100 years for each of the ``action'' alternatives. Alternative B: Hybrid Mid-Slope RealignmentThis alternative is the ``agency preferred'' alternative. It involves mid-slope realignment to the north of the existing road, traversing the south-facing slope of Mt. Finlayson. At its highest point, this alignment curves slightly south of the Mt. Finlayson summit. The realignment would be entirely on the surface (no tunnel), approximately 4,950 feet in length, with a short slope of 10.5% on the eastern end. This also is deemed to be the ``environmentally preferred'' course of action. Alternative C: Long Tunnel on Minor RealignmentThis alternative involves a short realignment (2,830 feet) relatively low on the slope of Mt. Finlayson. Sixteen hundred feet of the realignment would be within a bored tunnel. Maximum slope would be 7%. Alternative D: Mid-Slope Alignment with Short TunnelThis alternative involves mid-slope realignment to the north of the existing road, utilizing a short tunnel near the ridgeline of Mt. Finlayson. Realignment length would be 4,700 feet, 775 feet of which would be within the tunnel. Maximum slope would be 8%. Public Review and Comment: The DEIS is now available for public review. Copies may be obtained by contacting the Park as noted below. Printed copies of the document may also be reviewed at these locations in Friday Harbor on San Juan Island: San Juan County Public Library, San Juan County Office of Public Works, and at Park headquarters. The document may also be reviewed at Federal Highway Administration office in Vancouver, Washington. All written comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of filing of the DEISas soon as this date is confirmed, it will be announced on the project website and via local and regional media. During the review period, several options are available for providing written comments. Letters can be directly mailed to: Superintendent Peter Dederich, San Juan Island National Historical Park, P.O. Box 429, Friday Harbor, WA 98250. In addition, comments may be hand-delivered at the upcoming public workshop to be conducted on San Juan Island. Confirmed details on the date, location, and time for the workshop will be announced in local newspapers, in the forthcoming DEIS Alternatives newsletter, online at the Park Web site (http:// www.nps.gov/sajh), or may be obtained via telephone at (360) 378-2240. Comments may also be transmitted electronically on the NPS project Web site http//parkplanning.nps.gov/sajh. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire commentincluding your personal identifying informationmay be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Following the opportunity to review the DEIS, all comments received will be duly considered in preparing a Final EIS. The Final EIS is expected to be completed during the spring of 2011 and availability of the document will be similarly announced in the Federal Register and via local and regional press media.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan; Lake Chelan National Recreation Area; Whatcom, Skagit and Chelan Counties, WA; Notice of Availability
Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan (Plan/ DEIS). The Plan/DEIS evaluates four alternatives for sustainable management of NPS facilities (e.g., roads, maintenance yard, trails, bridges) in response to flooding and erosion issues on the lower Stehekin River between High Bridge and Lake Chelan, outside of the Stephen Mather Wilderness. When approved, the Plan will allow for implementation of several actions identified in the 1995 General Management Plan (GMP), including removal of NPS maintenance and housing facilities and the primary access road to North Cascades National Park from the floodplain, construction of new recreation facilities, and protection of the water quality and scenery along the lower Stehekin River. The Plan/DEIS also updates the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Land Protection Plan. Background: Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (LACH) encompasses 62,000 acres of the rugged North Cascade mountains. The focal point of LACH is the Stehekin River, which occupies a deep glacial valley on the east slope of the range. The Stehekin River is known for being flood prone due to rapid runoff from steep, rocky slopes and the location of its headwaters on the wet Pacific Crest of the Cascade Range. The Lower Stehekin valley below High Bridge is particularly vulnerable to flood and erosion damage due to rapid decrease in stream energy as the river flows through a widening valley and empties into Lake Chelan. Several key National Park Service (NPS) facilities (fuel storage, maintenance shops, and housing), private development, and roads are in the floodplain of the lower Stehekin River and threatened by floods. Flood conditions have become exacerbated by a shift in the timing, magnitude, and frequency of flooding on the Stehekin River in the 1970s, away from smaller spring floods to larger fall floods. This shift has produced the three largest floods since 1911 in the past 15 years. Changes in the river channel have resulted in threats to water quality and scenery as several private cabins and their sanitary systems have been incorporated into the river. This plan seeks to implement and refine guidance from the 1995 GMP for LACH that identified a new location for administrative facilities outside of regulatory floodplains. Locations for expanded recreation opportunities outside of designated wilderness within the National Recreation Area were also identified in this plan. The 1995 LACH Land Protection Plan, scheduled to be updated every two years, is the primary means for the NPS to acquire private cabins and associated water and sanitary systems to prevent degradation of water quality and scenic resources. Given drastic changes in flood conditions, this plan was in need of revision. Passage of the record floods in 2003 and 2006 led private landowners in the valley to request U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) advice on how to reduce flooding. While the COE failed to secure funds to do a detailed five-year study, its emergency management team recommended extensive bank hardening with rock, and dredging of the river channel. Estimated one-time cost is $12 million for removal of gravel deposited since 2000 at two mile-long sites near McGregor Meadows and the Stehekin River mouth. The NPS finds the COE recommendations to manipulate the river contrary to the purpose and significance of LACH. The potential for major action by another agency and continued placement of structures on the Stehekin River by the NPS to protect the road and private landowners to protect property create the need to assess cumulative impacts before new actions are considered. Surveys of channel topography (1972, 1990, 2004 and 2008) and position (1959, 1962, 1978, 1982, 1995, 2004, 2007, and 2009), measurement of gravel deposits (2007-08), hydrology data collected since 1911, and large wood surveys (conducted 1982, 2000, and 2007) provide the basis for development of a scientifically credible plan and impact analysis. Potential solutions for all alternatives were reviewed by a technical committee composed of representatives for the Washington DOE and DFW, Chelan PUD, Chelan County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and a private consultant. Public involvement in the conservation planning process began with widespread mailing of a scoping newsletter in early January 2008. Late in January 2008, meetings in Stehekin, Seattle, and Wenatchee provided an opportunity for the public to identify issues. Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2008. A news release for the public scoping meetings was sent in February 14, 2008, to local and regional news media (a follow up news release on March 5, 2008, extended public scoping to March 31). Following an NPS alternative development workshop in March 2008, a preliminary alternatives newsletter was developed and mailed to the public in summer 2008. This was followed-up by a public open house in Stehekin in August 2008. Both the newsletter and open house were announced via news releases to several media outlets, including local newspapers and radio and television stations. Purpose and Need for Federal Action: Recent major floods and resultant channel changes on the lower Stehekin River are threatening NPS facilities and natural resources within LACH. The three largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River have occurred within the past 15 years, and in response the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair flood damage since 2003. Roads, visitor facilities and private homes once thought to be safe from the river are now threatened. Because of the current impacts and future risks associated with these unprecedented conditions, the primary purpose of this implementation plan is to enable the NPS to meet goals and direction provided in the 1995 GMP, including: (1) Sustainably operate and maintain NPS administrative facilities, public access (roads and trails), and campgrounds; (2) Protect water quality, scenic values, habitat, and natural processes of the Stehekin River; and (3) Ensure the persistence of visitor services provided by the Stehekin community, including those services and facilities found on private lands. The NPS and FHWA have identified a need to evaluate comprehensive and sustainable management strategies and holistic actions to address the consequences of flooding. This implementation plan is needed to address several interrelated issues, including the following: (1) Respond to the Increased Magnitude and Frequency of Flooding. Prior to the late 20th century, the Stehekin River was prone primarily to spring snowmelt flooding. Since the 1970s, however, the Stehekin River has become prone to large fall rain-on-snow floods, which rise quickly and occur from mid-October through December. Hydrologic data collected on the river since 1911 confirm the statistical significance of this shift, as analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The passage of severe floods in 1995, 2003, and 2006 has led to significant changes in the Stehekin River channel, and redefined the boundaries for the 100-year flood. As a result, recreational and administrative facilities and developments once thought to be safe from the river are now threatened by flooding and bank erosion, while other sites in the floodplain have been compromised by larger, more frequent floods. Until now, the NPS has addressed problems on a case-by-case basis throughout the valley with the passage of each of these large floods. (2) Implement and Clarify 1995 Lake Chelan National Recreation Area General Management Plan Guidance. The GMP provides broad management guidance for LACH, as well as some specific prescriptions to mitigate the risks and consequences of flooding. As a programmatic document, the GMP lacks the specific management direction needed to respond to the current circumstances imposed by the recent floods and the change to a fall flood regime. Specific actions called for in the GMP that would be implemented in this plan include relocation of the maintenance facility and new NPS housing out of the floodplain, and continued maintenance of vehicle access on the Stehekin Valley and Company Creek roads. This implementation plan is needed to inform the location, design, construction, and implementation of these actions. Guidance provided by the GMP needs to be updated and clarified to reflect the dramatic increase in woody debris since 1995 and recognition of the influence of Chelan Public Utility District on the level of Lake Chelan and the lower Stehekin River. This plan is also needed to evaluate and publicly disclose the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of these actions on the resources and values of Lake Chelan NRA. (3) Sustain Public Facilities While Protecting Natural Resources. Management action is needed to provide long-term use and access to administrative and recreation facilities. Despite erosion protection and flood control efforts by the NPS and private landowners, bank erosion continues to threaten public and private property. Channel changes have increased the rate of erosion and frequency of flooding at some sites, while decreasing erosion rates at others. Integrated management actions such as facility relocation, site-specific bank hardening, and limited manipulation of woody debris in the Lake Chelan backwater zone now need to be considered to ensure the long-term sustainability of infrastructure and protection of resources. Management of large wood and proliferation of bank protection measures have the potential to impact Federal and state listed species and to increase the spread of non-native plants. These conditions underscore the need for updated assessment of erosion and flood protection measures in the lower Stehekin Valley. (4) Manage Limited Funding. The NPS has invested more than $3 million to react to recent flood damage and new threats on an event-by- event basis since 2003. A comprehensive and integrated set of strategies and tactics to meet the goals of the GMP and to mitigate the risk and impacts from flooding is urgently needed to enable the NPS to use limited funds for the maximum benefit of LACH. Without this comprehensive approach, the NPS may be compelled to continue reacting on a case-by-case basis, which is more expensive and could more adversely threaten natural resources and public safety. (5) Respond to Private Land-related Concerns. Lake Chelan NRA includes approximately 417 acres of private land, much of which lies within the floodplain and channel migration zone of the Stehekin River. Developments at McGregor Meadows and near the river mouth are particularly vulnerable because of their density and location in particularly active reaches of the river. These reaches, or sections of the river, have extensive new gravel deposits and rapidly growing logjams as a result of recent flooding. The high monetary and environmental costs of bank protection and flood mitigation measures continue to threaten private property and river resources. At the river mouth, accumulation of logs in the backwater zone of Lake Chelan has led to deeper flood water in parts of the floodplain. Recent flooding has hastened channel migration; damaged or destroyed several cabins; incorporated debris and sanitary systems (and occasional limited effluent discharges) into the river; and increased the flood risk to private lands previously not threatened by flooding. The NPS is concerned that these non-Federal circumstances could continue to adversely affect LACH and Stehekin River natural resources and values. The primary means by which the NPS can address this concern is via the Land Protection Plan (LPP), which identifies and prioritizes private lands for acquisition or exchange from willing sellers. Last updated in 1995, the LPP needs to be amended to address new river channel and floodplain conditions. Proposed Plan and Alternatives: The Plan/DEIS describes and analyzes three ``action'' alternatives, as well as continuation of current management. The three alternative management strategies differ primarily because they range from more removal of public facilities and threatened private developments from the channel migration zone (preferred Alternative 2) to less relocation and more dependence on bank hardening and maintaining the road in place (Alternative 4). Alternative three represents a mix of actions in Alternatives 2 and 4. All of the alternatives have common actions identified in the GMP, including relocation of NPS maintenance and some housing out of the channel migration zone, resurfacing of the road from Harlequin Bridge to mile 9.2 (just above Stehekin valley Ranch), and construction of a new trail system from Stehekin Landing to High Bridge with a connection to the river trail via a footbridge over the river near the USGS gage site. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would add new campsites at different locations to supplement sites at Harlequin Bridge that are seasonally flooded. Alternative 1 (continue current management) and Alternative 4 would keep the Stehekin valley road in place through McGregor Meadows. To protect the road from flood damage and to ensure access to private residences for emergencies during floods, about 6,000 cubic yards of fill would be placed in the floodplain. In Alternative 4, as many as 17 new rock barbs (rock structures used to redirect flows) would be placed along the river, with a similar number anticipated over time in Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 would relocate 1.9 miles of the Stehekin valley road from the floodplain in McGregor Meadows, while retaining private access to the area via a 0.75 mile long reduced maintenance road at grade. The alternatives differ in where the reroute returns to the existing road, with Alternative 2 staying out of the channel migration zone (CMZ) and Alternative 3 re-entering the CMZ at the Lower Field. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in closure of the shooting range near the Lower Field. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the number of barbs in the river relative to alternatives 1 and 4 (7-8 new barbs in Alternative 2 and four new barbs in Alternative 3). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would revise the LACH Land Protection Plan (LPP). Alternatives 2 and 3 would focus more on acquisition of private development threatened by the river, and look to cluster future development on areas outside of the channel migration zone. This represents a departure from the 1995 LPP, which placed a higher value on scenic resources along the Stehekin valley road. In Alternative 4, less emphasis would be placed on acquisition of development in the floodplain, and far fewer private parcels would be high priority for purchase or exchange. Comments: All written comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than December 13, 2010 (this end of comment period date will also be posted on the project Web site, and announced via local and regional press media). All comments should be addressed to: Superintendent, ATTN: SRCIP/DEIS, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, 810 State Route 20, Sedro Woolley, WA 98284. Comments may also be faxed to (360) 856-1934 or may be transmitted electronically to http://parkplanning.nps.gov/noca. The Plan/DEIS will be mailed directly to all those who requested a copy during public scoping. Review copies will also be available at park headquarters in Sedro-Woolley, the main visitor center in Newhalem, and at the Golden West Visitor center in Stehekin. To request a printed copy or CD-ROM version of the DEIS, phone (360) 856-5700 ext. 351. The document will also be available for downloading on the project Web site. All comments received will be maintained in the administrative record, and are available for review at North Cascades' headquarters. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire commentincluding your personal identifying informationmay be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To enhance the opportunity for public information and commenting, public meetings will be hosted at the following Washington locations: October 19 in Stehekin, October 20 in Wenatchee, and October 21 Seattle. Confirmed meeting times, specific locations and other details will be announced via local and regional news media and may be obtained on the park's Web site (http:// www.nps.gov/noca) or by phoning (360) 856-5700 ext.351. Participants are strongly encouraged to review the document prior to attending a meeting. The Superintendent and planning team members, including personnel from the Technical Committee will attend all meetings. The format will be the same for each meeting, and will include a brief presentation on the essential elements of the Plan/DEIS and a question and answer period. Oral and written comments may also be submitted. All meeting locations will be accessible for disabled persons. A sign language interpreter may be available upon request with prior notice (please contact the park as noted above). Decision: Following due consideration of all comments received on the DEIS, preparation and release of the Final EIS/Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan is anticipated for late summer 2010; availability will be similarly announced in the Federal Register. The actual date will depend upon the degree of public interest and response from agencies and organizations. Following a minimum 30 days ``no action'' period, a Record of Decision may be prepared; approval of the plan will be similarly announced in the Federal Register. This is tentatively anticipated for late 2010. As a delegated EIS the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region; subsequently the official responsible for implementation of the approved Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan is the Superintendent, North Cascades National Park Service Complex.