[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57834-57836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23124]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation; Olympic National 
Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA; Notice of Intent To Prepare a 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, National Park Service, and its cooperating agencies are 
undertaking a conservation planning and environmental impact analysis 
process intended to supplement the 1996 Elwha River Ecosystem 
Restoration Implementation final environmental impact statement (1996 
EIS). Two dams, built in the early 1900s, block the river and limit 
anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 river miles. The 1996 EIS is the 
second of two environmental impact statements that examined how best to 
restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fishery in 
Olympic National Park. Dam removal was determined to be the preferred 
option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired 
suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing 
these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which 
occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 
102-495). However, release of sediment from behind the dams would 
result in sometimes severe impacts to water quality or to the 
reliability of supply to downstream users during the dam removal impact 
period of about 3-5 years, which the 1996 EIS proposed mitigating 
through a series of specific measures (see below). Subsequently, new 
research and changes unrelated to the implementation project have 
emerged. Therefore, the primary purpose of this Supplemental EIS (SEIS) 
will be to identify and analyze potential impacts of a new set of water 
quality and supply related mitigation measures.

Background

    Elwha Dam was built in 1911, and Glines Canyon Dam in 1925, 
limiting anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 miles of river (blocking 
access to more than 70 miles of Elwha River mainstream 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, reduced spawning gravels downstream, and other 
changes. Consequently, salmon and steelhead populations in the river 
have been considerably reduced or eliminated, and the river ecosystem 
within Olympic National Park significantly and adversely altered.
    In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries 
Restoration Act (PL 102-495) directing the Secretary of the Interior to 
fully restore the Elwha river ecosystem and native anadromous 
fisheries, while at the same time protecting users of the river's water 
from adverse impacts associated with dam removal. The records of 
decision associated with this process indicated removal of both dams 
was needed to fully restore the ecosystem. However, impacts to water 
quality and supply will result from release of sediments, which have 
accumulated behind the dams. The 1996 EIS proposed and analyzed 
mitigation measures to protect water quality and ensure supply for each 
of the major downstream users. These users included the city of Port 
Angeles' municipal and industrial consumers, the Lower Elwha Klallam 
Tribe's fish hatchery, the state chinook salmon rearing channel, and 
the Dry Creek Water Association. Many private wells along the river 
could also be affected, but mitigation proposed for these users would 
remain substantially the same.
    Currently, surface water from a rock fill diversion and intake pipe 
at river mile 3.3 supplies the city's industrial clients and the state 
rearing channel. Mitigation to protect the city's industrial customers 
described in the 1996 EIS included the installation of an infiltration 
gallery to collect water filtered from the riverbed and open-channel 
treatment with flocculants, chemicals and polymers during dam removal. 
The city's municipal customers are supplied with a subsurface Ranney 
collector on the east-side of the river at river mile 2.8. To maintain 
water yield, the 1996 EIS

[[Page 57835]]

proposed a second Ranney collector be built on the river's west-side, 
opposite the current collector. A temporary ``package'' treatment plant 
to filter water from the Ranney wells would have been operational 
during dam removal. The rearing channel would have been closed during 
dam removal and chinook production transferred to another state 
facility.
    The tribal hatchery at river mile 1 will be central in protecting 
and producing Elwha anadromous fish for restoration following dam 
removal. Water for the hatchery is currently provided through wells and 
a shallow infiltration gallery. Measures described to protect hatchery 
water during dam removal included the expansion of the gallery to 
ensure supply and drilling of two new wells to provide clean 
groundwater for dilution.
    Dry Creek Water Association (DCWA) currently meets the needs of its 
members through groundwater wells. These wells would be subject to an 
increased frequency of flooding following dam removal, as well as 
increased sediment and mobilization of iron and manganese. The 1996 EIS 
analyzed two options for DCWA--connection to the city's water 
distribution system, or providing additional protection from flooding 
for the existing DCWA system and treating on site with filtration and 
chlorination.
    Since December 1996 (when the most recent record of decision was 
signed), the U.S. Department of the Interior (including Bureau of 
Reclamation) and its cooperating agencies (including the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe) have continued 
studying and refining elements of the selected alternative. As a 
result, they have found better solutions for protecting water quality 
and water supply during and following dam removal. In addition, changes 
in user needs have come about as a result of factors unrelated to the 
project. 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.
    As a result of these and other changes, the agencies are pursuing 
an option of building permanent water treatment facilities with varying 
levels of treatment depending on the ultimate use of the water (for 
additional details, see Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project 
Planning Report at www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm). The locations and 
types of diversions may also change because water collected from the 
city's Ranney well is no longer considered to be purely groundwater, 
but is highly connected to the river and so must be treated as a 
surface supply. In addition, problems associated with subsurface 
intakes during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period may now outweigh 
the benefits. These problems include possible clogging and reduced 
yields, increased costs of providing flood protection, and increased 
environmental impacts associated with installing and maintaining 
subsurface structures in or very near the river. Sources of ``true'' 
groundwater, which are not so closely connected to the river have been 
investigated, but do not exist in the quantities required. This leaves 
surface water as a more attractive option. An alternative of replacing 
the existing intake structure will therefore be analyzed in the SEIS. 
Feasibility studies indicate surface water could be treated and used 
for the city's industrial customer, in combination with well water for 
the state's rearing facility and the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal 
hatchery, and as a backup for the city's municipal customers. It may 
also be evaluated as an option to supply DCWA customers.
    The SEIS will also analyze changes unrelated to water quality 
mitigation where applicable. One of these changes is a re-evaluation of 
options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha 
Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying 
parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level 
and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel 
aggradation following dam removal. Although the 1996 EIS examined a 
community mounding system, the number of residents living in the valley 
part of the Reservation has now increased. The SEIS will evaluate other 
options which are technically, economically, or environmentally 
preferable in light of these changes. At this time, the Tribe is 
considering a variety of options, including individual onsite systems 
with pressurized pumps, small group treatment options, offsite 
treatment by others, or combining with other valley residents (who 
would not be affected by dam removal) to create a community treatment 
system.
    Since the release of the 1996 EIS, two species of fish cited for 
restoration have been listed as threatened, and the NPS has worked with 
USFWS and NMFS staff to further address these species during and 
following dam removal. Keeping the rearing channel open for chinook 
salmon production and modifying road culverts within the park to 
provide access for bull trout to additional tributary habitat are 
examples of some of the additional actions that the SEIS will examine.

Environmental Issues

    Updated and additional information relevant to decision-making will 
be presented in the SEIS. In addition to the points summarized above, 
further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas 
currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of 
actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed. The 1996 
EIS envisioned using one or more of nine solid waste disposal areas for 
rubble and other materials. Some of these may no longer be available, 
new sites might be added, or recycling of concrete may be economically 
preferable now.
    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be 
analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock 
diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and 
fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment 
facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy 
equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or 
visitors, and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required 
for treatment.
    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply 
include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for 
fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and 
protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in 
driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite 
rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and 
visitors.

Scoping/Comments

    Public scoping for the SEIS will conclude 30-days from the date of 
publication of this notice. All interested individuals, groups, and 
agencies are encouraged to provide information relevant to the design, 
construction, location, or potential environmental effects of desired 
measures noted above. Please limit comments to the proposal as 
described in this notice, since prior decisions to restore the 
ecosystem and anadromous fisheries through dam removal, and selection 
of the River Erosion alternative as the dam removal scenario, are 
beyond the scope of environmental impact analysis targeted in the SEIS.

[[Page 57836]]

    Additional information and periodic updates will be available at 
the Web site noted above or by contacting the Elwha Restoration Project 
Office at (360) 565-1320. All comments must be postmarked or 
transmitted no later than 30 days from the publication date of this 
notice; as soon as this date is determined it will be announced on the 
Web site noted. Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-
1325; via e-mail to: [email protected]; or via postal mail or hand 
delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project 
Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 
98362.
    If individuals submitting comments 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 a respondent's identity as allowable by law. As 
always: 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.

Decision

    The SEIS will be prepared in accord with all applicable laws and 
regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA 
(40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the NPS Management Policies (2001) and 
NEPA guidelines (Director's Order 12). A 60-day public review of the 
Draft will be initiated upon its release, which at this time is 
expected in early 2003; then subsequently a Final will be prepared. 
Issuance of both documents will be announced via local and regional 
press, direct mailings, on the Web site noted above, and through the 
Federal Register. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the 
final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region; 
subsequently the official responsible for implementation would be the 
Superintendent, Olympic National Park.

    Dated: July 9, 2002.
John J. Reynolds,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 02-23124 Filed 9-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P