24392 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices

B may elect to receive benefits through

either the existing Medicare fee-forservice program or a Part C M+C plan.

The regulations implementing these

sections was published on June 26,

1998. The regulations revising these

sections was published on February 17,

1999 and June 29, 2000.; Frequency:

Other: as needed; Affected Public:

Business or other for-profit, Individuals

or Households, Not-for-profit

institutions, Federal Government, and

State, Local, or Tribal Government;

Number of Respondents: 2,450; Total

Annual Responses: 7,657,534; Total

Annual Hours: 2,120,006.

To obtain copies of the supporting

statement for the proposed paperwork

collections referenced above, access

HCFA’s WEB SITE ADDRESS at http://

www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or Email your request, including your

address and phone number, to

Paperwork@hcfa.gov. or call the Reports

Clearance Office on (410) 786–1326.

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collections must be mailed

within 30 days of this notice directly to

the OMB Desk Officer designated at the

following address: OMB Human

Resources and Housing Branch,

Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive

Office Building, Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: April 24, 2001.

John P. Burke, III,

HCFA Reports Clearance Officer, HCFA,

Office of Information Services, Security and

Standards Group, Division of HCFA

Enterprise Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–11967 Filed 5–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–03–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Record of Decision: Final

Environmental Impact Statement; Lake

McDonald/Park Headquarters

Wastewater Treatment System

Rehabilitation, Glacier National Park, A

Unit of Waterton-Glacier International

Peace Park Flathead and Glacier

Counties, MT

The Department of Interior, National

Park Service (NPS) has prepared this

Record of Decision on the Final

Environmental Impact Statement on the

Lake McDonald/Park Headquarters

Wastewater Treatment System

Rehabilitation for Glacier National Park,

Montana. This Record of Decision is a

statement of the decisions made as a

result of environmental and

socioeconomic analysis and

consideration of public input. It

describes the following: project

background, the preferred alternative,

other alternatives considered, the

National Park Service decision and the

basis for the decision, the

environmentally preferable alternative,

mitigation measures and the

involvement of public, agencies and

other nations.

Project Background

Glacier National Park (Park) attracts

about 1.7 million visitors annually.

Approximately 60 percent of these

visitors enter the Park through the west

entrance. The existing Lake McDonald

wastewater treatment facility serves

developed areas at Lake McDonald

Lodge, Apgar Village, Sprague Creek,

Apgar and Fish Creek Campgrounds,

and Park Headquarters, park

maintenance area, seasonal park and

concession staff and year-round park

employee residences.

In 1996, the Park determined that

improvements and upgrades to the

wastewater facility and collection

system were needed to restore the

original treatment capacity and protect

resources from potential damage due to

accidental wastewater discharges. Since

1997, the Park has upgraded lift stations

at Lake McDonald Lodge and Sprague

Creek Campground and has replaced the

sewage collection system and made

other improvements as necessary. The

purpose of the proposed project is to

rehabilitate and improve the existing

wastewater treatment facility because it

is no longer meeting its original

treatment objectives or operating at the

capacity it was originally designed for.

In addition, the existing spray field used

as part of the treatment process, is

within the 100-year floodplain of

McDonald Creek and the Middle Fork of

the Flathead River and is only able to

operate seasonally due to snow cover

and or a high water table. The existing

sewage storage lagoon is inadequate to

store all the winter flow and

precipitation during wet years, until the

spray field is operational in the summer.

Decision (Selected Action)

The National Park Service will

implement Alternative 3 as described in

the Final Environmental Impact

Statement on the Lake McDonald/park

Headquarters Wastewater Treatment

System Rehabilitation, with some minor

clarifications and changes as indicated

below to replace the existing wastewater

treatment system with an advanced

tertiary treatment wastewater facility

that achieves the highest level of

nutrient and pathogen removal of all the

alternatives considered. The proposed

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)

will incorporate sequencing batch

reactors for nitrogen and phosphorus

removal combined with chemicals that

will remove additional phosphorus and

suspended solids. In addition, UV

disinfection will be used to kill

pathogens prior to discharge. The

proposed facility will require

enlargement of the existing WWTP

building to 60 feet × 100 feet. This

method will insure that nutrients will

be removed in accordance with

treatment levels established by EPA and

regulated by Montana DEQ.

In response to public comment

received on the FEIS, the method for

discharging the effluent has been

changed from what was described in the

FEIS. During the late spring, summer

and early fall, when the plant will be

treating up to 250,000 gallons of waste

per day, the effluent will be treated to

meet Montana DEQ standards for

surface water discharge and will be

disposed of by spray irrigation.

Approximately 30 acres of the existing

58 acre spray field will be refurbished

with new heads, pumps and controls

and will cost approximately $150,000.

Since the effluent will be treated to

surface water discharge standards,

irrigating the meadow by using the

spray field is not part of the treatment

process. However, it will provide a

polishing effect. Any remaining nitrogen

and phosphorus allowed by the

discharge permit will be taken up by the

plants and not enter the groundwater.

During the winter, when the plant

will treat up to 12,000 gallons of waste

per day, the effluent will be treated to

a higher level to meet EPA underground

injection control standards. To meet

these higher standards, the effluent will

be disinfected with ozone prior to

filtration and then UV prior to discharge

into an exfiltration gallery. The gallery

(also known as a groundwater injection

system) will be located southwest of the

horse barn, within the vicinity of the

existing spray field. The new plant’s

biological nutrient removal, filtration

and disinfection process will achieve

treatment standards set by EPA and

regulated by DEQ. Chlorine and the

disinfection by-products produced by

chlorine will not be used or generated.

Treated effluent discharges will meet

Montana DEQ non-degradation water

quality requirements in addition to

EPA’s underground injection control

requirements.

The new site for the exfiltration

gallery is within the area analyzed as

part of the affected environment in the

DEIS and FEIS. This site was not

surveyed for the velvetleaf blueberry,

although according to the park’s

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices 24393

Ecologist, it is not expected velvetleaf

blueberry habitat. Once the snows have

melted and prior to construction, the

site will be surveyed. If any plants are

located, the site for the exfiltration

gallery will be adjusted to avoid them.

The proposed exfiltration gallery,

described in the FEIS that was located

closer to the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River, is no longer being

considered. Concerns about adversely

affecting the hyporheic community and

continued perceptions by the public

that we were putting waste into a wild

and scenic river led the NPS to

reconsider this part of the proposal.

Continued consultation with Dr. Jack

Stanford, EPA and DEQ also contributed

to redesign of the effluent discharge

system.

Other Alternatives Considered

Several alternative wastewater

treatment systems were evaluated in the

Draft and Final EIS. Alternatives 1A and

1B would continue to use a lagoon

treatment system similar to the existing

facility. Alternative 1A would add an

additional aerated lagoon plus a new 13

acre spray field outside the 100-year

floodplain. Treated effluent would be

discharged into the existing and new

spray fields during the summer. During

the winter, sewage would be stored in

holding ponds. Alternative 1B would

add additional lagoons for winter

sewage storage until the existing spray

field was operational in the in the late

spring or early summer. This alternative

would require disturbance of about 16

acres of new land for construction of

additional storage lagoons. Treated

effluent discharge would meet Montana

DEQ water quality standards.

Alternative 2 is an advanced water

treatment facility similar to the

preferred alternative, but does not

include the chemical and filtration

treatments for phosphorus removal.

This facility would use a series of three

rapid infiltration basins to discharge the

treated effluent to ground water in a

terrace outside of the 100-year

floodplain. About 9 acres of forest

would need to be cleared to construct

the infiltration basins. Montana DEQ

ground water discharge standards

would be met.

The No Action Alternative would

continue operation of the existing

WWTP and spray field. Because this

facility is no longer treating to original

design criteria, biological oxygen

demand and suspended sediment

concentrations would continue to

increase. Occasional sewage spills from

the lagoon may occur during wet

springs when storage capacity is

exceeded and the spray field cannot be

operated. To reduce the potential for

spills, it may be necessary to restrict

Park or concession operations in the

winter or early spring. The current

facility would continue to meet state

water quality requirements. The existing

facility may not meet future demand

because it is no longer capable of

operating at the original capacity it was

designed for.

The selected action (Alternative 3) is

discussed in detail above, however

several options for the discharge of the

treated effluent were considered for this

alternative. These were use of a

constructed wetland, construction of an

artificial pond or channel for

infiltration, continued use of the

existing spray field in the floodplain,

direct discharge into the Middle Fork of

the Flathead River and an exfiltration

gallery in the floodplain of the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River. Because the

effluent is treated to the highest degree

possible with available technology,

(tertiary treatment), the type of

discharge outlet is not a critical factor

necessary to achieve treatment

objectives. A constructed wetland

would only be functional during a

relatively short growing season, would

require disturbance of approximately 2

acres, and may be difficult to operate

efficiently because of the wide

fluctuations in effluent discharges over

the year. Furthermore it is not expected

to substantially improve the quality of

the effluent discharge since it is already

being treated to the highest degree

possible. Construction of infiltration

ponds or channels would require

clearing about 10 acres of forested land

and would introduce a large visual

artificial drainage feature to the

landscape.

Environmental Preferred Alternative

The environmentally preferable

alternative is defined as ‘‘the alternative

that will promote the national

environmental policy as expressed in

the National Environmental Policy Act’s

section 101. Typically, this means the

alternative that causes the least damage

to the biological, and physical

environment. It also means the

alternative that best protects, preserves

and enhances historic, cultural and

natural resources’’ (Forty Most Asked

Questions Concerning Council of

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) National

Environmental Policy Act Regulations,

1981).

Each of the action alternatives

provides an environmentally preferable

alternative in comparison to continued

operation of the existing WWTP under

the No Action Alternative. However, the

selected action (Alternative 3) and the

modifications made to the discharge of

effluent, that has become the NPS

decision, provides the highest level of

sewage treatment of all the alternatives

under consideration, with the least

amount of adverse impacts to resources.

In addition to biological nutrient

removal, filtration and disinfection, the

selected action (Alternative 3) disposes

of effluent via land application.

Protection of our surface and ground

water is greatly enhanced by allowing

the plants in the spray field to naturally

uptake any nutrients remaining in the

waste system. This provides the highest

level of treatment possible.

National Park Service Decision

The National Park Service will

implement the Alternative 3 (the

preferred alternative) as described in the

Final EIS and this ROD with the

changes as explained above. The final

decision on how to discharge the

effluent was not described in the DEIS

or FEIS. However, the area affected by

this change in the preferred alternative

was analyzed in the EIS, and there will

be no additional or new impacts on

resources from this change. Therefore a

supplemental FEIS will not be prepared.

The effluent discharge system as

described in the FEIS would have

adversely affected the hyporheic

community located in the floodplain of

the Middle Fork of the Flathead River.

The basis for this decision is discussed

below.

Basis for the Decision

Although each of the action

alternatives evaluated in the FEIS would

meet the purpose and need of the

project, Alternative 3 provides the

highest level of treatment (tertiary) and

has the least impact on Park resources

including the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River, a Wild and Scenic River.

Alternative 3 provides for biological and

chemical treatment to remove both

nitrogen and phosphorus and ozone and

UV disinfection to kill pathogens. The

water quality of treated effluent will

meet Montana DEQ non-degradation

requirements and further be polished by

irrigating the pasture, so there will be no

adverse impact to the Middle Fork of

the Flathead River or groundwater.

Construction of the exfiltration gallery

southwest of the horse barn will cause

temporary disturbance during

construction of about .4 hectares (1

acre). Although this site is located

within the 100 year floodplain of the

Middle Fork of the Flathead River and

McDonald Creek, it will be buried to

avoid any adverse impacts to the

floodplain and is exempt from

compliance with NPS Guidelines for EO

24394 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices

11988. A floodplain permit will be

obtained from the Flathead Regional

Development Office to install the

exfiltration gallery.

Alternative 3 will not have an adverse

effect on the outstanding and

remarkable values and qualities

inherent within the recreational

segment of the Middle Fork of the

Flathead Wild and Scenic River,

because there will be no adverse impact

to water quality, scenic values,

recreational use, or the free-flowing

status of the river.

Alternative 3 will not adversely affect

any federally listed threatened or

endangered species or state listed

species. There will be no long-term loss

of Park natural resources. Adverse

impacts to natural resources will be

temporary and occur within an already

disturbed area. The existing wastewater

treatment building will be enlarged

within an already disturbed area. The

site where the exfiltration gallery will be

buried will be revegetated.

Why the Other Alternatives Were Not

Selected

Alternatives 1A and 1B would

improve the quality of the treated

effluent, meet anticipated water

demands, and eliminate potential

adverse environmental effects

associated with the existing WWTP.

However construction of new lagoons

and spray fields would require a longterm surface disturbance. This would

add an additional unnatural disturbance

to the Park and would eliminate or

modify plant communities and wildlife

habitat. Several velvetleaf blueberry

plants (a species listed as rare by the

State of Montana) would be adversely

affected and destroyed if these

alternatives were implemented. There

also would be minor changes in the

visual landscape with the construction

of new lagoons and forest clearing for a

new spray field. These alternatives

require the continued use of the existing

54 acre spray field within the 100 year

floodplain of the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River and the artificial

irrigation of meadow habitat.

Alternatives 1A and 1B were not

selected because of the environmental

effects associated with the need for

additional ground disturbance and the

desire to discontinue use of the existing

spray field as part of the treatment

process and provide a higher level of

sewage treatment.

Alternative 2 is an advanced water

treatment facility similar to Alternative

3, but does not include additional

treatment to remove phosphorus. In

addition, about 9 acres of forest would

need to be cleared to construct the

infiltration basins. Alternative 2 was not

selected because of the larger

disturbance and associated loss of

natural plant communities and wildlife

habitat that would be required.

The No Action alternative was

rejected because continuation of the

existing situation places park resources

at significant risk and because the

existing WWTP is no longer operating at

the level of treatment, efficiency or

capacity for which it was originally

designed. Continued use of the facility

may result in significant adverse effects

on park resources, and result in

limitations on Park and visitor

operations.

The proposed exfiltration gallery,

described in the FEIS, was located

closer to the Middle Fork of the

Flathead River, is no longer being

considered. Concerns about adversely

affecting the hyporheic community and

continued perceptions by the public

that we were putting waste into a wild

and scenic river led the NPS to

reconsider this part of the proposal.

Further consultation with Dr. Jack

Stanford, EPA and DEQ also contributed

to the redesign of the effluent discharge

system.

Measures To Minimize Environmental

Harm

Measures to minimize environmental

effects that could result from

implementation of Alternative 3 have

been incorporated into the decision. The

NPS selected action minimizes

environmental effects primarily by

avoiding sensitive habitat and confining

the area of disturbance to previously

disturbed areas. This includes locating

the WWTP building addition within the

existing parking area, and burying the

effluent discharge pipe and gallery

within an already disturbed area in the

vicinity of the horse barn. All areas

disturbed by construction will be

revegetated with native plant species.

Restrictions in the timing and season of

construction activity will be used to

minimize impacts to wildlife species.

Specific mitigation measures will be

incorporated into construction

specifications to prevent the

introduction of hazardous materials and

noxious and exotic plant material to the

environment. Other protective measures

will be used to prevent attracting

wildlife and to minimize the potential

for human/wildlife conflicts during

construction. Environmental effects to

water quality, groundwater, the

hyporheic community and the Wild and

Scenic River, will be minimized by the

selection of the alternative that offers

the highest level of sewage treatment

available with current technology and

incorporating a treatment level

necessary to meet EPA and Montana

DEQ non-degradation requirements.

Finding on Impairment of Park

Resources and Values

In addition to determining the

environmental consequences of the

preferred and other alternatives,

National Park Service policy

(Management Policies 2001) requires

analysis of potential effects to determine

whether or not actions would impair

park resources. Because implementation

of the preferred alternative will not

result in any major, adverse impacts to

a resource or value whose conservation

is (1) necessary to fulfill specific

purposes identified in the establishing

legislation of Glacier National Park; (2)

key to the natural or cultural integrity of

the park or to opportunities for

enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified

as a goal in the park’s general

management plan or other relevant

National Park Service planning

documents, there will be no impairment

of Glacier National Park’s resources or

values.

Public and Interagency Involvement

A Notice of Intent was published in

the Federal Register on October 18,

1999. Two public open houses were

held in October 1999 to conduct scoping

and solicit input from the public on the

proposed improvements to the

wastewater treatment facility. The draft

EIS was released in January 2000 and

two additional public open houses were

held in March 2000. A Notice of

Availability for the Draft EIS was issued

in the Federal Register on February 7,

2000. And a Notice of Availability for

the Final EIS appeared in the Federal

Register on August 28, 2000.

Consultation and coordination was

held with the U. S. Forest Service, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Environmental

Protection Agency, Montana

Department of Environmental Quality,

Flathead Regional Development Office,

Flathead County Department of Health

and Dr. Jack Stanford (Director of the

Flathead Lake Biological Station at

Yellow Bay). A Biological Assessment

was submitted to the US Fish and

Wildlife Service in April 2000. On

September 21, 2000, they wrote stating

they concurred with our determination

of ‘‘not likely to adversely effect’’ grizzly

bears, gray wolves, Canada Lynx and

bald eagles. They agreed with the ‘‘no

effect’’ determination for bull trout. On

July 17, 2000 the Army Corps of

Engineers surveyed the site for wetlands

and found no evidence that they were

present. On October 23, 2000, NPS

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2001 / Notices 24395

Ecologist, Tara Williams conducted a

wetland survey on additional lands in

the area to determine if an existing

wetland could be used as part of the

treatment process. None were found.

Comments received on the Final EIS

also concluded that the Environmental

Protection Agency supported the

Preferred Alternative. They also

recommended that the ultimate sludge

disposal location be identified and

selected. A subsequent phone call

clarified they did not intend for the NPS

to delay in issuing the Record of

Decision before resolving this, but to

explain in the ROD our progress to date

in locating a site. The NPS has

continued to communicate with local

landfills and sewage treatment plants

throughout the Flathead Valley.

Columbia Falls and Kalispell indicated

that they will take the sludge, however

they are unwilling to sign a contract

today for sludge disposal that won’t be

necessary for another 8 years.

Two letters were also received from

the Coalition for Canyon Preservation

during the 30 day no-action period on

the FEIS. One of these letters raised a

new concern about impacts to

groundwater that had not been raised in

their comments on the Draft EIS.

Groundwater resources and impacts

were addressed in the Draft and Final

EIS under the heading Water Resources

and Floodplains. Specific references to

groundwater are found on pages 45, 58,

59, 60, 62. Specific references to the

hyporheic community that also lives in

the groundwater are found on pages 67,

68, 69. The NPS decision and preferred

alternative, as described in the FEIS and

ROD, provides for treatment of

wastewater at the highest level that

technology allows. Concerns raised by

CCP and other members of the public

contributed to the NPS taking another

look at how best to protect the

hyporheic community and the Wild and

Scenic River. This resulted in further

modification of the effluent discharge

method described in the FEIS. The new

location for the exfiltration gallery and

the use of the spray field during the

spring, summer and fall months as

described in this ROD, will result in an

even better treatment system than

proposed in the DEIS or FEIS.

Neither direct discharge to the Middle

Fork of the Flathead River or

constructing an exfiltration gallery just

outside the 10 year floodplain of the

River will be further considered.

As described in this record of

decision treating the effluent during the

late spring, summer and early fall to

surface water standards and then

discharging it through the existing spray

field (which is not part of the treatment

process) will ensure that the

groundwater and hyporheic

communities are not adversely affected.

Use of an exfiltration gallery (near the

horse barn) and treatment of the effluent

to meet drinking water standards, will

ensure that groundwater is not

adversely affected. It will also provide

protection to the water quality of the

wild and scenic river and the values for

which it was designated a wild and

scenic river.

Concerns were also raised by the CCP

about development within floodplains.

The exfiltration gallery will be buried 6

feet below the surface in an already

disturbed area within the existing spray

field. It will not present an obstruction

within the floodplain. This is also

exempted from compliance with the

Executive Order 11988, in accordance

with NPS Guidelines for implementing

the executive order, because it is water

dependent. Siting it within an already

disturbed area was suggested by CCP in

a letter dated October 12, 2000.

All comments received on this project

are on file at Park headquarters in West

Glacier, Montana. Public and agency

comments were obviously an important

component of this project and greatly

assisted with modification and selection

of Alternative 3 and the NPS decision.

Conclusion

Alternative 3 with the changes

described in this record of decision,

provides the most comprehensive and

effective method among the alternatives

considered for rehabilitating the

wastewater treatment system in the Lake

McDonald/Park Headquarters area. The

selection of Alternative 3 as reflected by

the analysis contained in the

environmental impact statement, would

not result in the impairment of park

resources and will allow the National

Park Service to conserve park resources

and provide for their enjoyment by

visitors.

Recommended:

Dated: March 30, 2001.

Suzanne Lewis,

Superintendent, Glacier National Park,

National Park Service.

Approved:

Dated: April 9, 2001.

Michael D. Synder,

Regional Director, Intermountain Regional

Office, National Park Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12013 Filed 5–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Public Scoping for Proposed

Construction of a Two-Unit Vault Toilet

Comfort Station To Replace the

Existing Portable Chemical Toilets at

Gravelly Point, a Unit of the George

Washington Memorial Parkway

(GWMP)

AGENCY: National Park Service Interior.

ACTION: Availability of the proposal for

the construction of a two-unit vault

toilet comfort station to replace the

existing portable chemical toilets at

Gravelly Point.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Council on

Environmental Quality regulations and

National Park Service policy, the

National Park Service announces the

availability of a proposal for the

construction of a two-unit vault toilet

comfort station to replace the existing

portable chemical toilets at Gravelly

Point within the George Washington

Memorial Parkway (GWMP). The

proposal is examining several

alternatives for the specific location of

the temporary vault toilet unit. The

National Park Service is soliciting

comments on this proposal. These

comments will be considered in

preparing the Environmental

Assessment pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

DATES: The proposal will remain

available for public comment on or

before June 13, 2001. Written comments

should be post marked no later than this

date.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

Environmental Assessment should be

submitted in writing to: Ms. Audrey F.

Calhoun, Superintendent, George

Washington Memorial Parkway, Turkey

Run Park, McLean, Virginia 22101. The

Environmental Assessment will be

available for public inspection Monday

through Friday, 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. at

GWMP Headquarters, Turkey Run Park,

McLean, VA, on the National Park

Service Website www.nps.gov/gwmp

and at various libraries in the City of

Alexandria and Arlington County,

Virginia.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

National Park Service proposes to

construct a two-unit vault toilet comfort

station to replace the existing 2–4

portable chemical toilets at Gravelly

Point within the GWMP and the

possible relocation of an area designated

as Governors Grove. An estimated 1

million visitors per year use the

Gravelly Point area, which is accessible

from the northbound GWMP as well as