Jump to main content.

Final Environment Impact Statement for Reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection System, Death Valley National Park, Inyo County, CA; Notice of Availability

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 38897-38898]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10jy06-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service

Final Environment Impact Statement for Reconstruction of the 
Furnace Creek Water Collection System, Death Valley National Park, Inyo 
County, CA; Notice of Availability

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, Sec.  102(2)(c), and the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and its cooperating 
agency have completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
for the proposed reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection 
System. This water collection system reconstruction project is located 
in the Furnace Creek area of Death Valley National Park, California. 
The proposed project would rebuild the outdated water collection system 
in the Furnace Creek area to deliver a safe and reliable potable and 
nonpotable water supply to the park's main visitor use area. The FEIS 
was prepared in accordance with the National Park Service NEPA 
guidelines (Director's Order 12).

Background

    The National Park Service (NPS), Xanterra Parks & Resorts 
(Xanterra), and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (cooperating agency) are 
the primary water user groups in the Furnace Creek area. The Texas-
Travertine Springs complex in the Furnace Creek area may be the most 
critical water resource in Death Valley National Park. This series of 
springs provide water for all of the human use needs in the park 
headquarters area. Infrastructure in this area includes the primary 
National Park Service administrative offices, three NPS campgrounds, 
two private resort/visitor services facilities owned and operated by 
Xanterra, and offices and residences for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. 
The Texas-Travertine Springs complex also provides water that supports 
a riparian area--a biological community that includes habitat for a 
minimum of eight endemic special-status aquatic invertebrate species--
and a biologically and culturally important mesquite bosque.
    The existing water collection system was installed in the 1970's 
and has been unreliable, subject to failure, and is nearing the end of 
its useful life span. Many of the existing collection galleries have 
intermittently tested positive for coliform or E. coli bacteria, 
experienced unpredictable inputs of soil or organic matter, 
intermittently and unpredictably produced reduced volumes of water, and 
collected groundwater that does not meet state drinking water 
standards. When the system was installed approximately 30 years ago, 
there was an incomplete understanding of the Furnace Creek area's 
unique biological resource values, and water conservation strategies 
were not a priority.
    The park proposed to rebuild the antiquated water collection system 
in the Furnace Creek area to deliver safe and reliable drinking water 
to the park's main visitor use area and provide separate delivery 
systems for potable and nonpotable water. As part of the redevelopment 
of the Furnace Creek water collection system, the proposal would 
include restoring historic wetland and riparian habitat and providing 
for the long-term conservation of species endemic to the Furnace Creek 
area.

Proposal and Alternatives

    The Draft EIS identified and analyzed four alternatives for 
reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection System; these 
alternatives are not substantially modified in the FEIS. The first 
alternative, the No Action Alternative, would result in continued 
operation and maintenance of the existing water collection system. This 
alternative also composes an environmental ``baseline'' from which to 
compare the potential effects of other alternatives considered. Three 
``action'' alternatives would primarily differ in terms of how each 
would provide potable water to the Furnace Creek area.
    Alternative 2 would provide potable water from rebuilt collection 
galleries at Travertine Springs Line 3 and Line 4 and from two new 
groundwater wells in the Texas Springs Syncline. Alternative 2 would 
treat potable water using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant. 
Riparian water would be released from Travertine Springs Line 1 and 
Line 2 and from Texas Springs to restore historic wetland and riparian 
habitat. The restoration effort would include the incorporation of 
riparian water release measures that would reduce erosion and promote 
groundwater infiltration.
    Alternative 3 (agency preferred) would provide potable water from 
two to three new groundwater wells in the Texas Springs Syncline and 
would treat potable water using a reverse osmosis water treatment 
plant. Riparian water would be released from all of Travertine Springs 
and Texas Springs to restore historic wetland and riparian habitat. The 
restoration effort would include the incorporation of riparian water 
release measures that would reduce erosion and promote groundwater 
infiltration. Based on existing information and as documented in the 
EIS, Alternative 3 has been deemed to be the ``environmentally 
preferable'' alternative.
    Alternative 4 would provide potable water from Tavertine Springs 
Lines 2, 3, and 4 and from Texas Springs and would treat water using a 
reverse osmosis water treatment plant with supplemental water 
disinfection. Since the NPS would treat all potable water under this 
alternative, Travertine Springs would not require reconstruction of 
spring collection boxes or clearing and grubbing of vegetation from the 
spring water collection areas. Riparian water would be released from 
Travertine Springs Line 1 and from Texas Springs to restore historic 
wetland and riparian habitat. The restoration effort would include the 
incorporation of riparian water release measures that would reduce 
erosion and promote groundwater infiltration.

Project Planning Background

    Public and agency participation has been incorporated in this 
conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process.
    Death Valley National Park held public scoping and informal 
meetings in 2001 through 2004 to solicit ideas and concerns from park 
visitors, park staff, Native American groups, scientists, and 
government agencies. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published 
in the Federal Register on November 20, 2000. The NPS conducted an 
extensive public scoping process for the proposed reconstruction of the 
Furnace Creek Water Collection System that concluded on March 14, 2001. 
In addition to the Federal Register notice, information about the 
public scoping process was provided through local press releases, Web 
site postings, direct mailings, and the Furnace Creek Visitor Center 
newsletter.
    Three public scoping meetings were held on January 30 (in Pahrump, 
Nevada), January 31 (in Death Valley National Park), and February 1, 
2001 (in Independence, California). The purpose of these meetings was 
to: (1) Provide participants with an overview of existing conditions 
and the proposed

[[Page 38898]]

action; (2) ask participants to identify key issues that should be 
analyzed during the environmental review and compliance process; and 
(3) provide an opportunity for participants to ask questions regarding 
project alternatives and the overall conservation planning and 
environmental impact analysis process. As a result of the public 
scoping process, the NPS received two letters via U.S. mail and oral 
comments at the meetings. Issues identified during the public scoping 
process were summarized in the Draft EIS under the Planning Issues 
section, in Chapter I, Purpose and Need. All comments received during 
the public scoping process were duly considered in preparing the Draft 
EIS. In addition to public scoping, the park and its cooperating agency 
have also consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, California State Historic Preservation Office, and 
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
    The Draft EIS was available for public review during a 60-day 
comment period formally initiated with EPA's notice of filing of the 
document published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2005. The 
comment period concluded December 12, 2005. The NPS hosted two public 
meetings during the public review period to encourage comments from the 
public. The meetings were held on November 15 (in Death Valley National 
Park) and November 16 (in Pahrump, Nevada). The NPS received 7 comments 
on the Draft EIS, including 2 comments from unaffiliated individuals 
and 5 comments from Federal and State agencies. All comments and 
resposnes are included in the FEIS. Comments from the California 
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA raised the possibility 
of additional alternatives for disposal of the brine resulting from the 
reverse osmosis water treatment process. These techniques are addressed 
in the possible disposal alternatives considered in the FEIS.

Copies

    A printed copy of the FEIS may be obtained by telephoning (760) 
786-3243, e-mailing (deva_superintendent@nps.gov), or faxing (760) 
786-3283 a request to Death Valley National Park. The document also can 
be viewed via the Internet at the PEPC Web site http://www.nps.gov/
deva/pphtml/documents.html Exit Disclaimer. For further information, please 
contact: James T. Reynolds, Superintendent, Death Valley National Park, 
Death Valley, California 92328; telephone: (760) 786-3243.

Decision Process

    The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision not 
sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental 
Protection Agency of the notice of filing and availability of the FEIS. 
Announcement of the decision will be noticed in the Federal Register 
and via local and regional press media. As a delegated EIS, the 
official responsible for the final decision regarding the Furnace Creek 
water system is the Regional Director, Pacific West region. 
Subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved 
project will be the Superintendent, Death Valley National Park.

    Dated: April 20, 2006.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 06-6072 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FF-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.