[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42096-42098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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 
http://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 [email protected], 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