Final Environmental Impact Statement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Final Environmental Impact Statement Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Purpose and Need: The Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries are severely degraded as a result of two hydroelectric dams (projects) and their reservoirs built in the early 1900s. Congress has mandated the full restoration of this ecosystem and its native anadromous fisheries through the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495). The Department of the Interior has found there is a need to return this river and the ecosystem to its natural, self-regulating state, and proposes to implement the Congressional mandate by removing both dams in a safe, environmentally sound and cost effective manner and implementing fisheries and ecosystem restoration planning. Only dam removal would fully restore the ecosystem or its native anadromous fisheries. Proposed Action: The U.S. Department of the Interior proposes to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries through the removal of Elwha Dam and Glines Canyon Dam and implementing fish restoration and revegetation. Dam removal would occur over a 2-year period. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The proposed action is located in Clallam County, on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington State. Lead/Cooperating agencies: The National Park Service is the lead agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe are cooperating agencies/governments on this EIS. Type of statement: This is a final environmental impact statement (EIS). Because public and agency comments did not substantially modify any of the alternatives or the environmental analysis in the draft EIS, the full text of the draft has not been reprinted. Rather, the attached material includes a summary of responses to comments, factual corrections and text changes in the form of errata sheets, and copies of letters received from agencies and organizations. Substantive comments from all written and oral comments on the draft EIS were summarized and responded to in the attached Responses to Comment section. The complete final EIS includes the draft EIS and the material attached to this abstract. This final EIS is tiered, or procedurally connected, to Interior's June 1995 final Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration EIS, which determined dam removal was required to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and anadromous fisheries. Abstract: In addition to the proposed action, two other alternatives are examined. They are: removing fine-grained sediment prior to dam removal by using suction dredges, and sending the slurry to the Strait of Juan de Fuca in a pipeline, and No Action (i.e., dams are retained as is, without fish passage measures). The Proposed Action is also the Department of the Interior's "preferred alternative." Short-term adverse impacts from removing both dams would result from the release of sediment now trapped in the reservoirs. The finer grained particles would temporarily but significantly impact fish or other aquatic organisms. Impacts on water quality, river morphology, flooding, native anadromous and resident (i.e., trout and char) fisheries, living marine resources, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, vegetation, cultural resources, land use, recreation, aesthetic resources, and socioeconomics are also examined in this environmental impact statement. Both of the other alternatives would also have significant impacts on resources examined in this document. Public Involvement: Oral comments were taken on the draft EIS in Washington State in three public workshops on May 21-22, 1996. Written comments were taken for a 60-day period which ended June 27, 1996. Substantive comments were responded to in a question/answer format, and by making appropriate text changes to the draft. Those text changes are attached as errata sheets, and should be used in conjunction with Interior's April 1996 draft Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation EIS. To obtain a draft or the location of the nearest agency or library which has a copy of the draft, contact Olympic National Park at (360) 452-4501 x264. Copies will be sent to those who request them until the current supply is exhausted. All who received a draft EIS in the initial April 1996 mailing will also receive the attached material. Guide to Using This Document The attached document includes the following: A series of "errata sheets" or changes to the text of Interior's draft Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation environmental impact statement (Implementation EIS) Responses to Comments received on the Implementation EIS, indexed by subject and by author A new and revised Consultation and Coordination chapter A new appendix (appendix 7), the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion, and Copies of substantive comment letters received on the draft Implementation EIS from all agencies and organizations The combination of these materials and Interior's draft Implementation EIS serves as an "abbreviated" final EIS. The reasoning behind an abbreviated EIS, and the contents of errata sheets and the Responses to Comments section is explained in further detail below. The regulations which determine how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will be carried out include an option for responding to public comments on a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) when few changes result from those comments. The relevant section of these regulations (CFR 1503.4) states that if changes in response to public comments are minor and confined to factual corrections or explanations of why comments do not warrant further agency response, they may be written on errata sheets and attached to the draft EIS, instead of rewriting, printing and mailing the entire revised draft. The National Park Service (NPS) has opted to follow this "abbreviated" EIS procedure for the Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation EIS (Implementation EIS). NPS received 374 letters on the draft Implementation EIS. The number of separate comments in these letters and those taken at three workshops May 21-22, 1996 totaled nearly 500. Many of these comments were very similar or identical to those received on Interior's programmatic EIS on how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries. This document, Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration EIS, was finalized in June 1995 (copies are available from Olympic National Park). Although NPS received a large number of comments, few resulted in even minor factual corrections to the draft Implementation EIS. When they did, or when the EIS team elaborated and explained material which may have been unclear in the draft, text changes in the form of errata sheets were made. These sheets must be used in conjunction with the draft EIS. Copies of the Implementation EIS are available by calling Olympic National Park at (360) 452-4501 x264 or by going to regional libraries that are listed in the Consultation and Coordination section of this document. In addition to the text changes, specialists from the EIS team responded directly to each substantive comment received. The NEPA regulations described above also allow agencies to summarize public comments and respond to those summaries when appropriate. In an effort to reduce paperwork, streamline the planning process and reduce printing costs, all substantive comments have been summarized and combined where there is overlap in this final Implementation EIS. The responses to these combined and summarized comments are contained in the attached Responses to Comments section. This section includes indices to help each commentor locate the response to his or her particular comment. Finally, NPS has included copies of substantive comment letters received from all agencies and organizations (e.g., special interest groups, businesses, and academic institutions). Contents Corrections and Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 Summary 1 Introduction 1 Purpose and Need 1 Alternatives 1 Summary of Impacts 2 Fluvial Process and Sediment Transport2 Groundwater 3 Species of Special Concern 4 Cultural Resources 4 Socioeconomics 5 Recreation 5 Aesthetics 5 Purpose and Need 6 Introduction 6 Purpose and Need for Action 8 Relationship to Other Planning Documents 8 Issues and Concerns 8 Planning Goals and Objectives 14 Alternatives 14 No Action Alternative14 Fisheries Recovery 14 Costs 14 Proposed Action - River Erosion Alternative 14 Dam Removal 18 Water Quality Protection 18 Costs 19 Dredge and Slurry Alternative 21 Summary of Actions 21 Pipeline 21 Water Quality Protection 21 Costs 21 Alternatives Considered but Rejected 26 Dam Removal 26 Affected Environment 44 Fluvial Processes and Sediment Transport 44 River Morphology 44 Flooding 44 Flooding Frequency 44 Groundwater 47 Regional Hydrological Setting 47 Groundwater Quantity and Use 49 Groundwater Quality 49 Wildlife 49 Birds 49 Species of Special Concern 49 Federal Candidate Species 50 Living Marine Resources 50 Cultural Resources 50 Affected Resources 50 Socioeconomics 52 Public Infrastructure, Services, and Utilities 52 Social Values 52 Traffic 52 Waste Disposal Areas 52 Indian Trust Resources 52 Recreation