![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation; Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 57834-57836]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12se02-94]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; 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