[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67166-67168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25356]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Draft 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 Sec.  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 completed a draft 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 limit anadromous fish to the lowest 
4.9 river miles. A 1996 Implementation EIS (second of two impact 
statements that examined how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem 
and native anadromous fishery in Olympic National Park) selected 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 dam removal impact 
period of about 3-5 years, which the 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 the supplemental EIS (SEIS) is to 
analyze the 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, while at the same time protecting users of the 
river's water from adverse impacts associated with 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

[[Page 67167]]

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 measures to protect quality and ensure supply for each of 
the downstream users, which included:
    <bullet> The installation of an infiltration gallery to collect 
water filtered from the riverbed;
    <bullet> Open channel treatment of this water for industrial 
customers;
    <bullet> Closure of the state chinook rearing channel during and 
for years following dam removal, with chinook production transferred to 
another state facility;
    <bullet> The installation of a second subsurface Ranney collector 
on the opposite shore to maintain yield during meander away from the 
existing collector;
    <bullet> A temporary ``package'' treatment plant to filter water 
from the Ranney wells during dam removal;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> On-site flood protection for the Dry Creek Water 
Association wellfield, or connection of these users to the Port Angeles 
water system.
    Flood control measures included:
    <bullet> The development of a mounded septic system on the Lower 
Elwha K'lallam Reservation; and
    <bullet> 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 changes in flood stage following the 
restoring of riverbed sediments also showed they 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: Because this is a supplement to an EIS, 
the team generally analyzed only one action alternative and the No 
Action alternative for each mitigation facility. The 1996 
Implementation EIS is focused on dam removal and sediment management, 
and analyzes two action alternatives. It, in turn, is tiered to a 
programmatic EIS, which examined four options and the No Action 
alternative for restoring the Elwha River ecosystem. Therefore, the 
supplement examines the most preferable feasible alternative for 
mitigating impacts to water quality and supply. Only when it remains 
unclear at this time what the preferred option for a specific 
mitigation measure is are alternatives presented. This includes 
providing water for the Dry Creek Water Association, upgrading the 
tribal hatchery, and providing flood control for the tribal and other 
residents near the mouth of the river. Alternatives for supplying water 
to industrial, hatchery and municipal consumers, for treating municipal 
supply, intake and control weir and tribal wastewater connection to 
Port Angeles that were not selected for analysis and the reasons for 
not carrying them further are described in chapter two of the SEIS and 
in the Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report 
(available on the Elwha Web site at http://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).
    The proposed action includes the following:
    <bullet> 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's 
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 yield.
    <bullet> 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, provide fish 
habitat and pool water. The existing intake will be replaced.
    <bullet> A sediment removal facility 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. Water from this facility will be sent to industrial 
customers, and at times to a new water treatment facility during the 3-
5 year dam removal impact period.
    <bullet> A new permanent water treatment facility in Port Angeles 
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.
    <bullet> Flood protection of an existing wellfield, an optional 
wellfield and connection to the city of Port Angeles supply for Dry 
Creek Water Association, with an extension to four homeowners in Elwha 
Heights subdivision.
    <bullet> Expansion or relocation of the tribal hatchery, with water 
supplied from the sediment removal facility as described above.
    <bullet> Maintaining the state chinook rearing channel open during 
dam removal with water from the sediment removal facility, and creating 
a rearing pond on nearby Morse Creek as a back-up during dam removal.
    <bullet> 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. It would also be lengthened to provide 
protection near the mouth of the river. Three options for providing 
additional protection further upstream of the river mouth are examined. 
These include extending the levee, raising and strengthening the haul 
road, and using a series of spur dikes and deflection structures. A 
second levee across the river would also be strengthened, re-aligned 
along higher ground, or removed and the homes behind it raised.
    <bullet> The tribe would construct a sewage collection and pumping 
system and a pipeline to connect to the city of Port Angeles.
    <bullet> Finally, because economics regarding concrete have changed 
since 1996, sections removed from Glines Dam will be transported to a 
private facility to be crushed and recycled.
    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 
if protection or improvement beyond that resulting directly from dam 
removal is desired.

[[Page 67168]]

    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.
    Scoping. Public scoping for the SEIS took place in September and 
October 2002, and six comment letters resulting in twelve comments were 
received. All scoping comments are addressed in the SEIS (in chapter 5, 
Consultation and Coordination). In addition to public scoping, the park 
and its cooperating agencies have also consulted with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries to provide protection and 
restoration for bull trout and chinook salmon.
    Comments: This Supplement to the 1996 Implementation EIS is now 
available for public review. Interested persons and organizations 
wishing to express any concerns or comments should send written 
comments to Dr. Brian Winter, Elwha Project Manager, at 826 East Front 
Street, Ste. A, Port Angeles, WA 98362; telephone inquiries may be 
directed to (360) 565-1320. Faxed or electronic transmittals will be 
accepted also (electronic comments should be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d2f1f040c03323a040319081f2d031d1e430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="296b5b404847767e40475d4c5b6947595a074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>, and faxes may be sent to (360) 565-1325).
    Because several public meetings have already taken place on the 
1996 Implementation EIS (and the prior Programmatic EIS for dam 
removal), no additional public meeting for this supplement to discuss 
mitigation measures is anticipated. Therefore, written comments are the 
only vehicle for making your opinions and concerns known and a part of 
the record for this SEIS process. The following options are available: 
you may request a summary of the SEIS, a full paper copy of the SEIS, a 
CD of the SEIS and/or a CD of the full 1996 Implementation EIS which 
the subject document supplements. Those who commented during prior 
scoping processes will receive a full SEIS and a CD of the FEIS, as 
will agencies and others on the park mailing list (see chapter 5 of the 
SEIS). Please specify which of these documents/CDs you would like to 
receive when calling, e-mailing or faxing the Elwha Project Management 
Office. Finally, both the SEIS and 1996 Implementation EIS will be 
posted on the Elwha project Web site at http://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm.
    All written comments must be postmarked no later than 60 days from 
the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of 
filing in the Federal Register. Immediately upon confirmation of this 
date it will be posted on the park's Web site and announced via local 
and regional media. Please keep in mind that decisions or facts in the 
1996 implementation EIS are not subject to public comment at this time. 
The 1996 Implementation EIS is being made available for background 
information only, and no response to comments made on the 1996 
Implementation EIS during this 60-day review period will be forthcoming 
in the final SEIS. In other words, decisions associated with dam 
removal and sediment management have already been made and the 
information on which they were made has already been publicly 
reviewed--comments should be confined to information provided in the 
SEIS only. Be sure to include your complete name and address along with 
your comments. Please note that names and addresses of people who 
comment 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.

    Dated: September 13, 2004.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 04-25356 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-JK-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>