[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24392-24395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12013]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Record of Decision: Final Environmental Impact Statement; Lake 
McDonald/Park Headquarters Wastewater Treatment System Rehabilitation, 
Glacier National Park, A Unit of Waterton-Glacier International Peace 
Park Flathead and Glacier Counties, MT

    The Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS) has 
prepared this Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement on the Lake McDonald/Park Headquarters Wastewater Treatment 
System Rehabilitation for Glacier National Park, Montana. This Record 
of Decision is a statement of the decisions made as a result of 
environmental and socioeconomic analysis and consideration of public 
input. It describes the following: project background, the preferred 
alternative, other alternatives considered, the National Park Service 
decision and the basis for the decision, the environmentally preferable 
alternative, mitigation measures and the involvement of public, 
agencies and other nations.

Project Background

    Glacier National Park (Park) attracts about 1.7 million visitors 
annually. Approximately 60 percent of these visitors enter the Park 
through the west entrance. The existing Lake McDonald wastewater 
treatment facility serves developed areas at Lake McDonald Lodge, Apgar 
Village, Sprague Creek, Apgar and Fish Creek Campgrounds, and Park 
Headquarters, park maintenance area, seasonal park and concession staff 
and year-round park employee residences.
    In 1996, the Park determined that improvements and upgrades to the 
wastewater facility and collection system were needed to restore the 
original treatment capacity and protect resources from potential damage 
due to accidental wastewater discharges. Since 1997, the Park has 
upgraded lift stations at Lake McDonald Lodge and Sprague Creek 
Campground and has replaced the sewage collection system and made other 
improvements as necessary. The purpose of the proposed project is to 
rehabilitate and improve the existing wastewater treatment facility 
because it is no longer meeting its original treatment objectives or 
operating at the capacity it was originally designed for. In addition, 
the existing spray field used as part of the treatment process, is 
within the 100-year floodplain of McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of 
the Flathead River and is only able to operate seasonally due to snow 
cover and or a high water table. The existing sewage storage lagoon is 
inadequate to store all the winter flow and precipitation during wet 
years, until the spray field is operational in the summer.

Decision (Selected Action)

    The National Park Service will implement Alternative 3 as described 
in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Lake McDonald/park 
Headquarters Wastewater Treatment System Rehabilitation, with some 
minor clarifications and changes as indicated below to replace the 
existing wastewater treatment system with an advanced tertiary 
treatment wastewater facility that achieves the highest level of 
nutrient and pathogen removal of all the alternatives considered. The 
proposed wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) will incorporate sequencing 
batch reactors for nitrogen and phosphorus removal combined with 
chemicals that will remove additional phosphorus and suspended solids. 
In addition, UV disinfection will be used to kill pathogens prior to 
discharge. The proposed facility will require enlargement of the 
existing WWTP building to 60 feet  x  100 feet. This method will insure 
that nutrients will be removed in accordance with treatment levels 
established by EPA and regulated by Montana DEQ.
    In response to public comment received on the FEIS, the method for 
discharging the effluent has been changed from what was described in 
the FEIS. During the late spring, summer and early fall, when the plant 
will be treating up to 250,000 gallons of waste per day, the effluent 
will be treated to meet Montana DEQ standards for surface water 
discharge and will be disposed of by spray irrigation. Approximately 30 
acres of the existing 58 acre spray field will be refurbished with new 
heads, pumps and controls and will cost approximately $150,000. Since 
the effluent will be treated to surface water discharge standards, 
irrigating the meadow by using the spray field is not part of the 
treatment process. However, it will provide a polishing effect. Any 
remaining nitrogen and phosphorus allowed by the discharge permit will 
be taken up by the plants and not enter the groundwater.
    During the winter, when the plant will treat up to 12,000 gallons 
of waste per day, the effluent will be treated to a higher level to 
meet EPA underground injection control standards. To meet these higher 
standards, the effluent will be disinfected with ozone prior to 
filtration and then UV prior to discharge into an exfiltration gallery. 
The gallery (also known as a groundwater injection system) will be 
located southwest of the horse barn, within the vicinity of the 
existing spray field. The new plant's biological nutrient removal, 
filtration and disinfection process will achieve treatment standards 
set by EPA and regulated by DEQ. Chlorine and the disinfection by-
products produced by chlorine will not be used or generated. Treated 
effluent discharges will meet Montana DEQ non-degradation water quality 
requirements in addition to EPA's underground injection control 
requirements.
    The new site for the exfiltration gallery is within the area 
analyzed as part of the affected environment in the DEIS and FEIS. This 
site was not surveyed for the velvetleaf blueberry, although according 
to the park's

[[Page 24393]]

Ecologist, it is not expected velvetleaf blueberry habitat. Once the 
snows have melted and prior to construction, the site will be surveyed. 
If any plants are located, the site for the exfiltration gallery will 
be adjusted to avoid them.
    The proposed exfiltration gallery, described in the FEIS that was 
located closer to the Middle Fork of the Flathead River, is no longer 
being considered. Concerns about adversely affecting the hyporheic 
community and continued perceptions by the public that we were putting 
waste into a wild and scenic river led the NPS to reconsider this part 
of the proposal. Continued consultation with Dr. Jack Stanford, EPA and 
DEQ also contributed to redesign of the effluent discharge system.

Other Alternatives Considered

    Several alternative wastewater treatment systems were evaluated in 
the Draft and Final EIS. Alternatives 1A and 1B would continue to use a 
lagoon treatment system similar to the existing facility. Alternative 
1A would add an additional aerated lagoon plus a new 13 acre spray 
field outside the 100-year floodplain. Treated effluent would be 
discharged into the existing and new spray fields during the summer. 
During the winter, sewage would be stored in holding ponds. Alternative 
1B would add additional lagoons for winter sewage storage until the 
existing spray field was operational in the in the late spring or early 
summer. This alternative would require disturbance of about 16 acres of 
new land for construction of additional storage lagoons. Treated 
effluent discharge would meet Montana DEQ water quality standards.
    Alternative 2 is an advanced water treatment facility similar to 
the preferred alternative, but does not include the chemical and 
filtration treatments for phosphorus removal. This facility would use a 
series of three rapid infiltration basins to discharge the treated 
effluent to ground water in a terrace outside of the 100-year 
floodplain. About 9 acres of forest would need to be cleared to 
construct the infiltration basins. Montana DEQ ground water discharge 
standards would be met.
    The No Action Alternative would continue operation of the existing 
WWTP and spray field. Because this facility is no longer treating to 
original design criteria, biological oxygen demand and suspended 
sediment concentrations would continue to increase. Occasional sewage 
spills from the lagoon may occur during wet springs when storage 
capacity is exceeded and the spray field cannot be operated. To reduce 
the potential for spills, it may be necessary to restrict Park or 
concession operations in the winter or early spring. The current 
facility would continue to meet state water quality requirements. The 
existing facility may not meet future demand because it is no longer 
capable of operating at the original capacity it was designed for.
    The selected action (Alternative 3) is discussed in detail above, 
however several options for the discharge of the treated effluent were 
considered for this alternative. These were use of a constructed 
wetland, construction of an artificial pond or channel for 
infiltration, continued use of the existing spray field in the 
floodplain, direct discharge into the Middle Fork of the Flathead River 
and an exfiltration gallery in the floodplain of the Middle Fork of the 
Flathead River. Because the effluent is treated to the highest degree 
possible with available technology, (tertiary treatment), the type of 
discharge outlet is not a critical factor necessary to achieve 
treatment objectives. A constructed wetland would only be functional 
during a relatively short growing season, would require disturbance of 
approximately 2 acres, and may be difficult to operate efficiently 
because of the wide fluctuations in effluent discharges over the year. 
Furthermore it is not expected to substantially improve the quality of 
the effluent discharge since it is already being treated to the highest 
degree possible. Construction of infiltration ponds or channels would 
require clearing about 10 acres of forested land and would introduce a 
large visual artificial drainage feature to the landscape.

Environmental Preferred Alternative

    The environmentally preferable alternative is defined as ``the 
alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as 
expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act's section 101. 
Typically, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to 
the biological, and physical environment. It also means the alternative 
that best protects, preserves and enhances historic, cultural and 
natural resources'' (Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning Council of 
Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act 
Regulations, 1981).
    Each of the action alternatives provides an environmentally 
preferable alternative in comparison to continued operation of the 
existing WWTP under the No Action Alternative. However, the selected 
action (Alternative 3) and the modifications made to the discharge of 
effluent, that has become the NPS decision, provides the highest level 
of sewage treatment of all the alternatives under consideration, with 
the least amount of adverse impacts to resources. In addition to 
biological nutrient removal, filtration and disinfection, the selected 
action (Alternative 3) disposes of effluent via land application. 
Protection of our surface and ground water is greatly enhanced by 
allowing the plants in the spray field to naturally uptake any 
nutrients remaining in the waste system. This provides the highest 
level of treatment possible.

National Park Service Decision

    The National Park Service will implement the Alternative 3 (the 
preferred alternative) as described in the Final EIS and this ROD with 
the changes as explained above. The final decision on how to discharge 
the effluent was not described in the DEIS or FEIS. However, the area 
affected by this change in the preferred alternative was analyzed in 
the EIS, and there will be no additional or new impacts on resources 
from this change. Therefore a supplemental FEIS will not be prepared. 
The effluent discharge system as described in the FEIS would have 
adversely affected the hyporheic community located in the floodplain of 
the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. The basis for this decision is 
discussed below.

Basis for the Decision

    Although each of the action alternatives evaluated in the FEIS 
would meet the purpose and need of the project, Alternative 3 provides 
the highest level of treatment (tertiary) and has the least impact on 
Park resources including the Middle Fork of the Flathead River, a Wild 
and Scenic River. Alternative 3 provides for biological and chemical 
treatment to remove both nitrogen and phosphorus and ozone and UV 
disinfection to kill pathogens. The water quality of treated effluent 
will meet Montana DEQ non-degradation requirements and further be 
polished by irrigating the pasture, so there will be no adverse impact 
to the Middle Fork of the Flathead River or groundwater. Construction 
of the exfiltration gallery southwest of the horse barn will cause 
temporary disturbance during construction of about .4 hectares (1 
acre). Although this site is located within the 100 year floodplain of 
the Middle Fork of the Flathead River and McDonald Creek, it will be 
buried to avoid any adverse impacts to the floodplain and is exempt 
from compliance with NPS Guidelines for EO

[[Page 24394]]

11988. A floodplain permit will be obtained from the Flathead Regional 
Development Office to install the exfiltration gallery.
    Alternative 3 will not have an adverse effect on the outstanding 
and remarkable values and qualities inherent within the recreational 
segment of the Middle Fork of the Flathead Wild and Scenic River, 
because there will be no adverse impact to water quality, scenic 
values, recreational use, or the free-flowing status of the river.
    Alternative 3 will not adversely affect any federally listed 
threatened or endangered species or state listed species. There will be 
no long-term loss of Park natural resources. Adverse impacts to natural 
resources will be temporary and occur within an already disturbed area. 
The existing wastewater treatment building will be enlarged within an 
already disturbed area. The site where the exfiltration gallery will be 
buried will be revegetated.

Why the Other Alternatives Were Not Selected

    Alternatives 1A and 1B would improve the quality of the treated 
effluent, meet anticipated water demands, and eliminate potential 
adverse environmental effects associated with the existing WWTP. 
However construction of new lagoons and spray fields would require a 
long-term surface disturbance. This would add an additional unnatural 
disturbance to the Park and would eliminate or modify plant communities 
and wildlife habitat. Several velvetleaf blueberry plants (a species 
listed as rare by the State of Montana) would be adversely affected and 
destroyed if these alternatives were implemented. There also would be 
minor changes in the visual landscape with the construction of new 
lagoons and forest clearing for a new spray field. These alternatives 
require the continued use of the existing 54 acre spray field within 
the 100 year floodplain of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River and 
the artificial irrigation of meadow habitat. Alternatives 1A and 1B 
were not selected because of the environmental effects associated with 
the need for additional ground disturbance and the desire to 
discontinue use of the existing spray field as part of the treatment 
process and provide a higher level of sewage treatment.
    Alternative 2 is an advanced water treatment facility similar to 
Alternative 3, but does not include additional treatment to remove 
phosphorus. In addition, about 9 acres of forest would need to be 
cleared to construct the infiltration basins. Alternative 2 was not 
selected because of the larger disturbance and associated loss of 
natural plant communities and wildlife habitat that would be required.
    The No Action alternative was rejected because continuation of the 
existing situation places park resources at significant risk and 
because the existing WWTP is no longer operating at the level of 
treatment, efficiency or capacity for which it was originally designed. 
Continued use of the facility may result in significant adverse effects 
on park resources, and result in limitations on Park and visitor 
operations.
    The proposed exfiltration gallery, described in the FEIS, was 
located closer to the Middle Fork of the Flathead River, is no longer 
being considered. Concerns about adversely affecting the hyporheic 
community and continued perceptions by the public that we were putting 
waste into a wild and scenic river led the NPS to reconsider this part 
of the proposal. Further consultation with Dr. Jack Stanford, EPA and 
DEQ also contributed to the redesign of the effluent discharge system.

Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm

    Measures to minimize environmental effects that could result from 
implementation of Alternative 3 have been incorporated into the 
decision. The NPS selected action minimizes environmental effects 
primarily by avoiding sensitive habitat and confining the area of 
disturbance to previously disturbed areas. This includes locating the 
WWTP building addition within the existing parking area, and burying 
the effluent discharge pipe and gallery within an already disturbed 
area in the vicinity of the horse barn. All areas disturbed by 
construction will be revegetated with native plant species. 
Restrictions in the timing and season of construction activity will be 
used to minimize impacts to wildlife species. Specific mitigation 
measures will be incorporated into construction specifications to 
prevent the introduction of hazardous materials and noxious and exotic 
plant material to the environment. Other protective measures will be 
used to prevent attracting wildlife and to minimize the potential for 
human/wildlife conflicts during construction. Environmental effects to 
water quality, groundwater, the hyporheic community and the Wild and 
Scenic River, will be minimized by the selection of the alternative 
that offers the highest level of sewage treatment available with 
current technology and incorporating a treatment level necessary to 
meet EPA and Montana DEQ non-degradation requirements.

Finding on Impairment of Park Resources and Values

    In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the 
preferred and other alternatives, National Park Service policy 
(Management Policies 2001) requires analysis of potential effects to 
determine whether or not actions would impair park resources. Because 
implementation of the preferred alternative will not result in any 
major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 
necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing 
legislation of Glacier National Park; (2) key to the natural or 
cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 
park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park's general management plan 
or other relevant National Park Service planning documents, there will 
be no impairment of Glacier National Park's resources or values.

Public and Interagency Involvement

    A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on October 
18, 1999. Two public open houses were held in October 1999 to conduct 
scoping and solicit input from the public on the proposed improvements 
to the wastewater treatment facility. The draft EIS was released in 
January 2000 and two additional public open houses were held in March 
2000. A Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS was issued in the 
Federal Register on February 7, 2000. And a Notice of Availability for 
the Final EIS appeared in the Federal Register on August 28, 2000.
    Consultation and coordination was held with the U. S. Forest 
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Department of Environmental 
Quality, Flathead Regional Development Office, Flathead County 
Department of Health and Dr. Jack Stanford (Director of the Flathead 
Lake Biological Station at Yellow Bay). A Biological Assessment was 
submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service in April 2000. On 
September 21, 2000, they wrote stating they concurred with our 
determination of ``not likely to adversely effect'' grizzly bears, gray 
wolves, Canada Lynx and bald eagles. They agreed with the ``no effect'' 
determination for bull trout. On July 17, 2000 the Army Corps of 
Engineers surveyed the site for wetlands and found no evidence that 
they were present. On October 23, 2000, NPS

[[Page 24395]]

Ecologist, Tara Williams conducted a wetland survey on additional lands 
in the area to determine if an existing wetland could be used as part 
of the treatment process. None were found.
    Comments received on the Final EIS also concluded that the 
Environmental Protection Agency supported the Preferred Alternative. 
They also recommended that the ultimate sludge disposal location be 
identified and selected. A subsequent phone call clarified they did not 
intend for the NPS to delay in issuing the Record of Decision before 
resolving this, but to explain in the ROD our progress to date in 
locating a site. The NPS has continued to communicate with local 
landfills and sewage treatment plants throughout the Flathead Valley. 
Columbia Falls and Kalispell indicated that they will take the sludge, 
however they are unwilling to sign a contract today for sludge disposal 
that won't be necessary for another 8 years.
    Two letters were also received from the Coalition for Canyon 
Preservation during the 30 day no-action period on the FEIS. One of 
these letters raised a new concern about impacts to groundwater that 
had not been raised in their comments on the Draft EIS. Groundwater 
resources and impacts were addressed in the Draft and Final EIS under 
the heading Water Resources and Floodplains. Specific references to 
groundwater are found on pages 45, 58, 59, 60, 62. Specific references 
to the hyporheic community that also lives in the groundwater are found 
on pages 67, 68, 69. The NPS decision and preferred alternative, as 
described in the FEIS and ROD, provides for treatment of wastewater at 
the highest level that technology allows. Concerns raised by CCP and 
other members of the public contributed to the NPS taking another look 
at how best to protect the hyporheic community and the Wild and Scenic 
River. This resulted in further modification of the effluent discharge 
method described in the FEIS. The new location for the exfiltration 
gallery and the use of the spray field during the spring, summer and 
fall months as described in this ROD, will result in an even better 
treatment system than proposed in the DEIS or FEIS.
    Neither direct discharge to the Middle Fork of the Flathead River 
or constructing an exfiltration gallery just outside the 10 year 
floodplain of the River will be further considered.
    As described in this record of decision treating the effluent 
during the late spring, summer and early fall to surface water 
standards and then discharging it through the existing spray field 
(which is not part of the treatment process) will ensure that the 
groundwater and hyporheic communities are not adversely affected. Use 
of an exfiltration gallery (near the horse barn) and treatment of the 
effluent to meet drinking water standards, will ensure that groundwater 
is not adversely affected. It will also provide protection to the water 
quality of the wild and scenic river and the values for which it was 
designated a wild and scenic river.
    Concerns were also raised by the CCP about development within 
floodplains. The exfiltration gallery will be buried 6 feet below the 
surface in an already disturbed area within the existing spray field. 
It will not present an obstruction within the floodplain. This is also 
exempted from compliance with the Executive Order 11988, in accordance 
with NPS Guidelines for implementing the executive order, because it is 
water dependent. Siting it within an already disturbed area was 
suggested by CCP in a letter dated October 12, 2000.
    All comments received on this project are on file at Park 
headquarters in West Glacier, Montana. Public and agency comments were 
obviously an important component of this project and greatly assisted 
with modification and selection of Alternative 3 and the NPS decision.

Conclusion

    Alternative 3 with the changes described in this record of 
decision, provides the most comprehensive and effective method among 
the alternatives considered for rehabilitating the wastewater treatment 
system in the Lake McDonald/Park Headquarters area. The selection of 
Alternative 3 as reflected by the analysis contained in the 
environmental impact statement, would not result in the impairment of 
park resources and will allow the National Park Service to conserve 
park resources and provide for their enjoyment by visitors.

    Recommended:
    Dated: March 30, 2001.
Suzanne Lewis,
Superintendent, Glacier National Park, National Park Service.
    Approved:
    Dated: April 9, 2001.
Michael D. Synder,
Regional Director, Intermountain Regional Office, National Park 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-12013 Filed 5-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P