National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Olympic National Park

Washington

Elwha River

Ecosystem

Restoration

Implementation

Draft Supplement to the Final

Environmental Impact Statement

December 2004

Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement

Elwha River Ecosystem

Restoration Implementation

Purpose and Need: The need for ecosystem restoration, dam removal, and sediment management has

been explained in previous environmental impact statements, including the Final Elwha River Ecosystem

Restoration Implementation Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that this document supplements. In

addition to analyzing two detailed dam removal and sediment management alternatives, the FEIS

proposed mitigation for impacts of dam removal related to water supply, water quality, flooding, changes

in groundwater levels, and impacts to fish. Since the release of the FEIS, several changes have occurred,

and additional information has been gathered. These changes and new information have resulted in the

need for different mitigation than that analyzed in the FEIS. This new mitigation is analyzed in this Draft

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).

Type of Statement: This document is a draft supplement to the Final Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration

Implementation Environmental Impact Statement, which was distributed in November 1996.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of the Interior is proposing mitigation measures to accomplish the

following goals: (1) to protect municipal and industrial water users and two fish propagation facilities

(hatcheries) during dam removal, (2) to provide flood protection at current levels, (3) to provide the

ability to treat wastewater for those residents whose septic systems would be rendered ineffective, and (4)

to protect listed fish to the maximum extent possible during and following dam removal. The means to

accomplish these goals include a new surface water diversion and intake; a new water treatment plant to

remove suspended solids and to supply water to hatcheries and to industrial and municipal users during

and following dam removal; a municipal water treatment facility; strengthening, raising, and lengthening

existing levees or homes as needed; providing flood protection or alternate supplies for affected

groundwater users; providing assistance in connecting septic system users to a city wastewater treatment

system; providing access to clean tributary habitat for bull trout; keeping the Washington State

Department of Fish and Wildlife state chinook-rearing channel open during dam removal; modifying or

moving the tribal fish hatchery; and creating rearing ponds on nearby Morse Creek to ensure the survival

of Elwha chinook during dam removal. The SEIS also updates cost information, describes the selected

mitigation for trumpeter swans, and proposes crushing and recycling concrete removed from the dams

rather than transporting it to a land disposal site. The no-action alternative is the same as in the FEIS, as

this SEIS is considered an addition to that document. The proposed actions are located in Clallam County,

on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington State. 

Lead/Cooperating Agencies: The National Park Service is the lead agency. The Bureau of Reclamation

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, are cooperating agencies, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is a

cooperating tribal government on this SEIS. 

Public Comment: Comments from the public are encouraged and should be sent to the contact listed

below. Comments will be accepted for 60 days from the publication in the Federal Register of the notice

of availability of this SEIS. Please check the Elwha homepage <http://www/nps.gov/olym/elwha/

home.htm> for exact dates. Send comments to Dr. Brian Winter, Elwha Project Manager, Elwha Project

Office, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362; telephone 360-565-1320.

iii

Summary

Introduction

This document supplements the second of two environmental impact statements that studied how to fully

restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries in Clallam County, Washington. This

restoration is directed by the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act, Public Law 102-495

(the Elwha Act). While this Draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) has been designed as a stand-alone document

for readability, it is legally an extension of the Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which was finalized in November 1996. This means, for

example, that although the no-action alternative is “no dam removal” as it was in the FEIS, the decision to

remove the dams has been made and formalized in a 1996 “Record of Decision.” The impacts of this noaction alternative have simply been repeated in this SEIS for information purposes and to help readers

understand the background of the action; it does not mean that the National Park Service or its

cooperating agencies are revisiting the decision to remove the dams.

In the early 1900s the free-flowing Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State was

blocked by two hydroelectric dams, neither of which was built with means to pass the 10 runs of native

anadromous salmon and trout that had used the river for spawning and rearing for centuries. Since it was

completed in 1913, the Elwha Dam has prevented migrating salmon and trout from using the upstream 70

miles of the mainstem and tributary habitat. The Glines Canyon Dam was completed farther upstream in

1927. These dams are the primary cause of the precipitous decline of salmonid populations to fewer than

3,000 naturally spawning fish today compared to an estimated 392,000 fish prior to dam construction.

The loss of fish from 93% of the Elwha River has resulted in severe impacts to the entire Elwha River

ecosystem due to the loss of nutrients and carcasses and the effects on aquatic and terrestrial vegetation

and wildlife. 

To accomplish the purposes of the Elwha Act, two environmental impact statements (EISs) were

completed to analyze alternatives. 

1. The Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration: Final Environmental Impact Statement (June 1995)

evaluated options for restoring the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries and is

referred to in this document as the Programmatic FEIS. The “Record of Decision” that followed

selected the removal of both dams as the only option that would accomplish full restoration. 

2. The Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Final Environmental Impact Statement

(November 1996) examined two ways of removing the dams, as well as the sediment stored

behind them. It is referred to throughout this document as the FEIS or Implementation EIS. The

“Record of Decision” selected “river erosion” as the preferred alternative for removing sediment.

(The November 1996 FEIS included only specific changes to the DEIS, not the entire text of the

draft document. Subsequently, a compilation of the DEIS and FEIS was prepared that included all

the text of the draft, along with changes presented in the FEIS, plus responses to comments and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Biological Opinion.”). The FEIS is available by contacting

the Elwha Restoration Project Office (826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362),

or on the Elwha homepage at <http://www/nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm>. 

A supplemental EIS is prepared if either there is a “substantial change” to the selected action that is

“relevant to environmental concerns,” or “there are significant new circumstances or information relevant
Summary

iv

to environmental concerns and bearing on the selected action or its impacts.” The changes to water

supply, water quality, and flood control mitigation analyzed in this SEIS are considered substantial, and

so a supplement has been prepared. Any other changes to the proposed action not relevant to mitigation

(such as the recycling of concrete removed from the dams, for example) or additional detail relevant to

the proposed action (such as fisheries protection or revegetation of the reservoirs) are also included in this

document.

The choice to remove both dams and to follow the actions described for the river erosion alternative will

remain the same and is not subject to further public comment. Work has not yet begun to remove the

dams. 

Because most of the Elwha River watershed lies within Olympic National Park, the National Park Service

has served as the lead agency for the Programmatic and the Implementation EISs, as well as this SEIS.

Other agencies involved in the preparation of this EIS are the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. 

Purpose and Need

The need for ecosystem restoration, dam removal, and sediment management resulted in the

Programmatic and Implementation EISs described above. In addition to analyzing two detailed dam

removal and sediment management alternatives, the Implementation FEIS proposed mitigation for

impacts of dam removal related to water supply, water quality, flooding, changes in groundwater levels,

and impacts to fish. Several changes have occurred since the FEIS was released, prompting the

participating agencies to consider a different direction for many of the original mitigation measures. For

example, changes in the requirements for treatment of the city’s municipal water supply, the need to keep

the state’s fish-rearing channel open during dam removal, and other factors have meant revising a

treatment strategy for water quality.

Other changes since the release of the Implementation FEIS that bear on the proposed action include an

increase in the number of reservation residents whose septic systems will be affected by the rise in the

surface water level of the river, the listing of two species of fish as threatened under the Endangered

Species Act, and the changing economics of recycling concrete. In addition, more detail is now available

on actions that will occur as part of the revegetation of the dewatered reservoir sites.

These changes are the reason a supplemental EIS is needed; therefore, the proposed action is primarily a

package of mitigation measures designed to maintain water quality and supply, flood protection, and fish

rearing and hatchery conditions. 

Alternatives

No-Action Alternative

Because this document is a supplement to the Implementation FEIS, the no-action alternative is virtually

the same as that in the FEIS. No action is the continuation of current management, and in the FEIS the noaction alternative is no dam removal. As noted above, the no-action alternative is presented in this SEIS

primarily for background and readability, as the decision to remove the dams has been made and

formalized in a 1996 “Record of Decision.” Where management or the environment has changed since

that “Record of Decision” was signed, the no-action alternative is slightly different than that in the FEIS.
Summary

v

The pieces of the no-action alternative described in this SEIS concern current management of water

supply, water quality, and flood protection. These are the items that are the subject of updated mitigation

measures evaluated in this SEIS. 

Currently, water for industrial clients is supplied by means of a rock diversion structure and intake along

the river. The city’s municipal water supply is taken from an existing subsurface Ranney collector. As the

water from the Ranney collector has recently been determined to be under the influence of surface water,

the city will need to revise its water treatment to meet surface water treatment standards. Therefore, some

change to water treatment would occur under the no-action alternative. 

A federal levee on the east side of the river extends from near the mouth south for 1.5 miles, protecting

reservation lands belonging to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. A private, much shorter levee on the west

side provides some flood protection for residents at the river’s mouth. No modifications would take place

at either of these levees or to homes or wells upstream to protect them from floods, including those who

obtain water from the Dry Creek Water Association (DCWA) under the no-action alternative. 

Tribal wastewater treatment for valley residents is currently by means of individual septic systems; this

would remain the case, or the tribe could pursue community treatment independent of the river restoration

project under the no-action alternative. The tribal hatchery would also remain in its current location, and

operations would remain as they are now; this is also true of the chinook-rearing facility operated by the

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 

Because the dams would not be removed, there would be no need to revegetate reservoir areas. Also,

disposal of rubble from the dams would be unnecessary. 

No monitoring/mitigating actions would occur related to the trumpeter swan at Lakes Aldwell and Mills.

Proposed Action

Both dams would be removed, and sediment would be managed as described in the FEIS. Mitigation for

impacts of dam removal to water quality, water supply, fish hatchery operations, and flood stage would be

as described below.

Water for both industrial and municipal water would be supplied from a surface supply; a new weir and

intake structure would be built slightly upstream from the existing diversion structure. The weir would be

designed to pass all fish and sediment. Water collected from this intake would be treated during spikes of

turbidity at an Elwha water treatment plant (EWTP) near the existing industrial intake channel at river

mile (RM) 2.8. The plant would supply treated water to the tribal hatchery, to the Nippon Paper Industries

treatment facility, to the fish-rearing channel, and as a back-up to a new municipal Port Angeles water

treatment plant (PAWTP) during and for a period of time following dam removal. The Port Angeles plant

would be built near the city’s landfill. 

Flood mitigation measures include raising, strengthening, and extending the federal levee to protect

housing and other facilities, and raising or otherwise providing existing flood level protection for homes

and wells in other locations along the river. Options for the DCWA users include an alternative well field,

raising the existing well field, or connecting to the city’s municipal supply. Potable water for homeowners

in the Elwha Heights subdivision would be provided by a connection to DCWA.

Tribal septic systems, which could be rendered ineffective by rising groundwater associated with dam

removal, would be replaced with a connection to the Port Angeles wastewater treatment facility. 
Summary

vi

Fish restoration projects would be constructed with particular emphasis on chinook salmon and bull trout

(currently listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Modifications to or relocation of the

tribal hatchery would occur to improve the functionality of that facility. Clean water would be supplied to

the state chinook-rearing channel to allow it to remain open during and following dam removal. 

Dam rubble would be buried, or crushed and recycled, and the dewatered reservoirs would be revegetated.

Acquisition of property or development rights to offset impacts to trumpeter swans would occur. 

Environmental Consequences

The environmental impacts in this SEIS evaluate the degree of change a particular resource would

experience under the implementation of either the no-action alternative or the proposed action. The

resources analyzed have come from park staff, laws, regulations and policies, and the interested and

affected public, including other agencies, who were contacted during scoping. 

The “Affected Environment” describes the resources and their current state, and the “Impacts” chapter

analyzes the extent, intensity, and duration of impacts to the resources expected under each alternative.

NPS Management Policies and various NPS Director’s Orders require that the impact analysis also determine whether an alternative might impair NPS values or resources, particularly related to natural and

cultural resources. Such impairment is specifically prohibited by the NPS Organic Act. The analysis in

this SEIS indicates that the proposed action would not impair any park resources or values.

A summary of major conclusions presented in this SEIS is presented below.

Flooding

The Elwha River typically experiences two periods of high runoff — November through March from

heavy rains, and May through June from spring snowmelt. Floods are characterized by sharp rises in

discharge (usually less than 24 hours to the peak) and a gradual recession over two days or more.

Statistics show that the flood stage in the Elwha and neighboring rivers is increasing over time, likely

related to a combination of logging and other land-clearing activities and climate.

The reservoirs created by the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams provide only small storage volumes,

affording minimal flood protection. Since the dams were built, relatively little bedload has been introduced into the river downstream of the dams, allowing the riverbed to degrade and reducing the flood

hazard from pre-dam conditions to some properties along the lower river. Nonetheless, many homes,

wells, roads, facilities, and cultural resources are situated within the 100-year floodplain and are

susceptible to flooding now.

Under the no-action alternative the dams would continue to be operated in natural flow mode. Structures

and cultural resources within the present 100-year floodplain would continue to be flooded periodically,

and riverbed degradation would offer an unnatural but existing benefit to downstream residents in some

places by lowering the flood stage. The degradation of the riverbed has also resulted in less side channel

or pool habitat, an adverse impact to the river’s riparian ecosystem. Some existing flood control structures

have also had minor to moderate localized impacts on the floodplain and the values it offers to fish,

vegetation, wildlife, and recreationists. 
Summary

vii

Implementation of the mitigation measures under the proposed action would ensure that privately owned

structures and facilities, as well as the federal flood protection levee, would be protected from flooding

impacts associated with dam removal and increased aggradation of riverbed sediments. It is possible that

two campgrounds and a ranger station inside Olympic National Park would be flooded more frequently or

experience increased bank erosion. Over the long term, minor, adverse impacts to the natural floodplain

could be expected from installing flood control measures, particularly along the federal levee. Temporary

impacts could occur to the flow of river water and to the floodplain during the construction of mitigation

facilities. 

Surface Water

Annual precipitation in the Elwha River basin ranges from 220 inches in its upper reaches to 35 inches near

the mouth of the river. Discharge is influenced by winter storms and spring snowmelt and by baseflow

conditions during the summer and fall. Flow regimes of the river and its tributaries are nearly natural, as the

dams are operated in “run-of-the-river” mode. 

The Elwha River and its tributaries are classified by the Washington Department of Ecology as “salmon

and trout spawning, core rearing, and migration” areas (signifying “extraordinary” water quality). Overall,

the Elwha has relatively low concentrations of dissolved and suspended sediment loads, nutrients, and

organics. Changes in water quality occur in the lower part of the watershed, mostly as a result of reduced

sediment load and elevated water temperatures during the summer. Although the reservoirs have

moderately reduced turbidity and trapped iron and manganese, they have also resulted in substantially

higher water temperatures than under natural conditions, a major adverse impact to water quality and

aquatic organisms. As noted above, Port Angeles municipal water is currently drawn from an

underground Ranney collector that has recently been deemed to be “under the influence of surface water,”

and therefore additional treatment is needed. 

Elwha River surface and groundwater rights are held by the City of Port Angeles, private landowners, and

the Dry Creek Water Association. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the tribal fish hatchery also

withdraw water from the river, and additional unquantified water rights are held in trust for the tribe to

guarantee sufficient water to support treaty fisheries and the purposes of the Lower Elwha Klallam

Reservation.

Water quality in Morse Creek, where up to four chinook-rearing ponds would be located to hold Elwha

chinook during dam removal, is also considered a “salmon and trout spawning, core rearing, and

migration” area by the Washington Department of Ecology. 

Under the no-action alternative the reservoirs would continue to have moderately reduced turbidity and

trapped iron and manganese particles, and increased temperatures downstream of the dams. Port Angeles

would need to change the treatment of its municipal water to comply with standards related to the water

being reclassified as “under the influence of surface water.” Park surface water would continue to be

adversely affected by higher water temperatures under the no-action alternative.

Under the proposed action surface water users would not be affected in the long term by dam removal, as

mitigation measures to protect them against adverse impacts would be implemented. Water quality

monitoring during and following dam removal would help identify and mitigate any additional unknown

or unanticipated impacts.
Summary

viii

The construction of water quality and water supply mitigation facilities, as well as those associated with

the mitigation of flood impacts and impacts to anadromous fisheries, would result in increased erosion of

soils at the construction sites and possible contamination of those soils by petroleum products during the

two-year construction period. Periodic pulses of turbidity following construction, with impacts ranging

from negligible to moderate, would be likely, even with the use of best management practices. Replanting

and reseeding sites after construction would return erosion rates to pre-construction conditions within one

year or sooner. 

Providing users with surface water during dam removal would ensure a consistent supply, a benefit

compared to water supply mitigation proposed in the FEIS. This alternative would return treatment

residuals from the Elwha water treatment plant to the river during dam removal, but because the impact

would occur during dam removal, it would be barely detectable, that is, a negligible to minor impact on

water quality. Short-term releases of organic material and chemicals from the hatcheries during dam

removal would have negligible impacts on water quality because of ongoing impacts from dam removal.

Over the long term these releases would decrease to current levels, with a negligible to minor adverse

impact on Elwha water quality. Before dam removal and following the return of turbidities to near predam conditions, the impacts of the disposal of this effluent to water quality could be minor or moderate.

Construction and operation of fish ponds on Morse Creek could result in exceedances of water quality

standards, a major adverse impact. With mitigation, these impacts could be reduced to negligible or

minor. 

No impairment to park water resources in the Elwha River would occur as a result of the mitigation

measures described in the proposed action.

Groundwater

An alluvial sand and gravel groundwater aquifer underlying the Elwha River valley is the current supply

source for the City of Port Angeles, the Dry Creek Water Association, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

(including fish hatchery), and the Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association. Total use by the major

groundwater purveyors in the Elwha River valley is approximately 22.3 cubic feet per second (cfs). 

The groundwater in the Elwha River watershed is of excellent quality; the entire headwater area is

protected within Olympic National Park. The watershed land use is primarily rural, but non-point source

pollution from agricultural and other land use has a minor influence on groundwater quality. Private

septic systems in the lower basin present a potential for groundwater contamination because of the poor

filtering capability of the soils and the high water table. 

As with surface water, the reservoirs have moderated turbidity and manganese and iron concentrations, as

well as having modified groundwater tables in some areas. Migration and flooding frequency have been

reduced through the elimination of sediment transport to the middle and lower reaches, resulting in the

armoring of the downstream channel. This has increased the yield for some wells and has allowed well

users to drill wells in the floodplain. Continued use of groundwater by residents along the river and

wastewater disposal (septic systems) may have had negligible to minor adverse impacts on groundwater

in the study area.

The impacts of dam removal to groundwater include temporary increases in turbidity, higher levels of

manganese and iron in wells, and an increase in river stage and associated groundwater levels in some

areas. Without mitigation, users would experience minor to major impacts from dam removal. Mitigation

under the proposed action for this SEIS for most wells remains the same as analyzed in the FEIS;
Summary

ix

however, the Dry Creek Water Association is considering the additional alternative of an alternative well

field and distribution system. Because additional homes beyond those identified in the FEIS are affected

by rising groundwater levels, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is proposing a wastewater collection and

pumping facility to pipe wastewater to Port Angeles for treatment. These mitigation measures would keep

impacts resulting from changes in groundwater following dam removal to negligible. No national park

groundwater resources would be affected by this alternative; therefore, no impairment of park resources

or values would occur.

Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries

Ten stocks of anadromous salmon and trout are either now present in the Elwha River or were known to

be present before the dams were built. They are winter and summer steelhead trout; coho; summer/fall

and spring chinook; pink, chum and sockeye salmon; cutthroat trout; and native char (Dolly Varden and

bull trout). Pacific and brook lamprey have also been documented in the Elwha River. In addition to these

anadromous species, the Elwha harbors many other species of non-migrating fish (e.g., sculpins, resident

cutthroat). The Elwha River is currently the largest producer of steelhead and chinook salmon on the

Strait of Juan de Fuca and is second only to the Dungeness River for coho. Nearly all chinook, coho, and

steelhead are hatchery-produced. 

The Elwha Dam confines native anadromous fish to the lower 4.9 miles of river habitat and prevents their

access to more than 70 miles of usable habitat in the middle and upper Elwha River. The two dams

degrade habitat in the lower river by increasing water temperatures to levels that contribute to disease

outbreaks, trapping large woody debris important for in-stream cover, reducing nutrient flow necessary

for invertebrate (food) production, and trapping spawning-sized gravels essential for successful natural

reproduction. The trapping of coarse sediment and nutrients also adversely affects the size and quality of

the estuary near the river mouth, which serves as a nursery for juvenile salmonids. In addition, the lack of

bedload in the lower river prevents the formation of side channel habitat used by chum for spawning and

coho for rearing. Flood control, including the federal levee, may also have eliminated or reduced the

quality of side channel and riparian habitat for fish. 

The no-action alternative would continue these major adverse impacts to anadromous fisheries in the

Elwha River. There would be no new wild production of native anadromous fish, and hatcheries would

continue to provide the vast majority of Elwha anadromous fish. Existing stocks in the lower river

unsupported by artificial propagation would likely decline to extinction. 

Impacts to fish under the proposed action in this SEIS would primarily be associated with sediment

released during the construction of mitigation facilities. Fish in the Elwha River or Morse Creek could

experience some short-term pulses of turbidity from accidental releases at construction sites, during storm

events, or from in-river work. The impacts would be short term and negligible to minor. Additional

negligible to minor impacts from the short term or permanent loss of streamside vegetation as fish habitat

would be possible from construction, as well as from extension of the federal levee. The replacement of

the rock diversion structure would cause temporary minor adverse impacts from turbidity and loss of

spawning gravel, but would ultimately result in minor to moderate benefits for anadromous fish from the

installation of fish passage and state-of-the-art bypass facilities. Operation of the Elwha water treatment

plant would have no more than negligible additional effects from the release of solids and coagulation

chemicals over impacts from dam removal, which would occur simultaneously with these releases. No

impairment of park fish resources would occur as a result of the mitigation activities described in the

proposed action.
Summary

x

Soils

Most soils in the study area are composed of glacial drift, mixed glacial deposits, and eroded materials

transported by water and deposited as alluvial terraces. 

Proposed mitigation measures include activities along the lower 3.7 miles of the Elwha River and the

existing landfill in western Port Angeles, where the Port Angeles water treatment plant is proposed. Soil

map units along the lower reaches of the Elwha River that could be impacted include typic xerofluvents

and Neilton very gravelly sandy loam. Clallam gravelly sandy loam occurs in the western portion of Port

Angeles. 

The dams and the reservoirs they created caused major changes and adverse impacts to soils through

excavation, compaction, and inundation. These impacts would continue under the no-action alternative, as

would minor to moderate impacts from several existing facilities that would be modified under the

proposed action. Because the affected soils are not a resource considered unique to the park or for which

the park was created, their inundation does not qualify as an impairment.

Nearly all mitigation activities in the proposed action would result in some type of ground-disturbing

impact to soils. Impacts from excavation and removal of soils would be permanent, but because they

would be confined to either particular locations or because the removals would occur in already disturbed

areas, they would primarily be minor in intensity. Some pipeline routes proposed for the Dry Creek Water

Association and possibly for transmission of wastewater from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe could have

up to moderate effects due to the removal of soil and the length or location of the pipeline. Installing a toe

to strengthen the federal levee would result in moderate localized impacts. Compaction of soils from

heavy equipment at the Elwha and Port Angeles water treatment plant sites, as well as from the extension

of the federal levee north and south, would also be very long term or permanent impacts, but they would

be localized and minor. Erosion, which would occur at nearly all construction sites, and contamination,

which is possible from fuel leaks or the transport or use of treatment chemicals at the Elwha and Port

Angeles water treatment plants, would be minimized through the use of best management practices and

spill response measures. Impacts to soils from erosion or contamination would be minor, site-specific, and

temporary. The proposed actions would not result in impairment to any park soils.

Vegetation

The Elwha River, oriented north-south, is one of the longest drainages on the Olympic Peninsula. As a

result, the river valley supports a unique mix of plant communities transitional between the vegetation of

the east and west sides of the Olympic Peninsula. Most of the study area consists of upland and riparian

forest communities, including conifer, mixed conifer / hardwood, and hardwood. Upland grassland and

deciduous shrub communities are sparsely distributed. 

A number of wetlands have been identified within the study area and include at least three types —

forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent. Willow and red alder are the dominant tree species in wetlands;

common understory species include salmonberry, Indian plum, and skunk cabbage. Clallam County

conditional use permits require buffers around high-quality wetland areas, as well as buffers between

construction areas and the river. 

Long-term studies of riparian zones (the river channel and lands where vegetation is influenced by the

river) have consistently found a high level of biological diversity. The Elwha riparian zone provides, or

could provide, important habitat for threatened, endangered, or rare species. In the project area examined
Summary

xi

in this SEIS, the riparian zone along the Elwha River from RM 2.8 to 3.7 is expected to be impacted by

the construction of proposed mitigation facilities. Upland locations that could experience impacts include

the proposed Port Angeles water treatment plant adjacent to the city’s existing landfill, roads and sections

of pipelines, and fish-holding/rearing ponds on Morse Creek. 

The reservoirs have had major adverse effects on vegetation due to the inundation of 700+ acres, much of

it riparian and wetland vegetation. Vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed mitigation facilities is

disturbed throughout most of the area, although small patches of riparian forest are relatively unaffected

and could be restored following dam removal. Two large, high-quality wetlands and several small, less

diverse wetlands are also in the study area. The no-action alternative would continue major adverse

effects on park vegetation.

The proposed action could result in impacts to both upland and riparian vegetation due to removal,

trampling, and shearing as mitigation facilities were built and operated. From south to north,

floodproofing the existing DCWA well field could result in minor to moderate, long-term impacts to

riparian vegetation, while the use of the proposed alternative well field site would have moderate,

permanent impacts to riparian vegetation; minor, permanent impacts to forested wetlands along an access

road; and minor impacts to floodplain wetlands. Any of the five pipeline alignments from the alternative

well field would have negligible to minor impacts to vegetation; this would also be true of a possible

pipeline connecting the Dry Creek Water Association to the municipal system. Loss of some riparian

vegetation to remove the existing diversion and intake facility and to construct a new upstream control

weir would occur, but the loss would likely be minor and temporary. The inundation of riparian

vegetation at the control weir could be compensated by the recovery of downstream riparian vegetation

where the existing diversion would be removed, with negligible impacts.

Impacts due to the loss of mixed forest and understory at the Elwha water treatment plant site would be

permanent, and impacts at staging areas would be temporary; overall impacts would be minor to moderate.

Smaller, man-made wetlands on site could be lost when drainage was altered; the loss would be considered

negligible. Two larger wetlands could experience temporary, indirect, minor to moderate impacts during

construction.

Impacts to riparian vegetation from raising and widening the federal levee would generally be minor

because vegetation is generally disturbed or artificially maintained, although at the southern end, impacts

to a relatively undisturbed forest could be minor to moderate. The forest on the east side of the levee

might experience negligible to minor impacts. Impacts from constructing the hatchery or wastewater

pump station on the Halberg property would be negligible to minor. Extending the levee south would

result in moderate, permanent impacts to vegetation through the loss of trees and the division of a

relatively pristine forested area.

Because it is already disturbed and limited in size, the impact of grading and removing forest and understory

vegetation at the Port Angeles water treatment plant site would be minor, adverse, and permanent. 

Negligible to minor impacts to vegetation from installing culverts for bull trout, clearing helicopter

landing pads to outplant chinook, or creating chinook holding / rearing ponds (on Morse Creek) would

occur.

Negligible to minor additional impacts to vegetation, beyond those described in the FEIS, could occur from

helicopter landing pads and the use of heavy equipment (staging and access roads) associated with

revegetating the reservoirs. 
Summary

xii

No impairment to park vegetation would occur.

Wildlife

Large and small mammals have been observed or are known to occur in the study area. Mammal species

include Columbian black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, beaver, river otter, coyote, bear, cougar, weasels,

mink, and several species of bats. Numerous bird species also use the area, including robins, red-tailed

hawks, western flycatchers, ducks, great blue herons, hooded mergansers, pileated woodpeckers, gulls,

cormorants, ruffed and blue grouse, mountain chickadees, great horned owls, and western screech owls.

Trumpeter swans number about 80 in the Lake Aldwell and Lake Mills areas, where many temporarily

overwinter. Although trumpeter swans are outside the study area for this SEIS, impacts are discussed in

this document because the means to mitigate for the loss of reservoir habitat had not yet been decided in

the FEIS. Common reptiles in the project area include the northwestern garter snake, common garter

snake, northern alligator lizard, roughskin newts, and Pacific chorus frog. 

Under the no-action alternative the dams would continue to have major adverse impacts on park wildlife,

with wide-ranging effects in the Elwha River valley because of habitat inundation and blocked passage of

anadromous fish upstream of RM 4.9 and the resulting loss of the calories and nutrients that they

contribute to the ecosystem. Wildlife is not abundant in disturbed riverbank areas. Areas of relatively

intact forest habitat exist where riparian forest species are likely. Few wildlife species were observed in

developed areas where habitat is degraded. Shorebirds and gulls were observed near the shore. Habitat at

the Morse Creek site is relatively undisturbed and occupied by common bird and small mammal species. 

As a result of the proposed mitigation facilities, negligible to moderate, temporary impacts to wildlife

from construction noise at either DCWA well field site would occur; if bats roost in the vicinity, their

abandonment of roosting sites could be a moderate impact. The loss of off-channel, water-filled gravel

pits due to filling at either DCWA site would be a minor to moderate, permanent impact on wildlife.

Construction noise would also disrupt and displace wildlife in the vicinity of the existing and proposed

diversion and intake facilities; trampling of riparian vegetation would also occur. Because there is little

wildlife use of the riverbank, impacts here would be minor, although impacts to wildlife in the

surrounding vegetation from noise would be moderate and temporary.

Wildlife populations in the vicinity of the Elwha water treatment plant are expected to panic, flee, and

abandon the area within at least 1,500 feet during the construction period, a moderate, adverse, localized

impact. Wetland habitat would also be lost, or indirectly affected by air emissions or turbidity, a

negligible to moderate impact. Minor impacts from the permanent loss of habitat would also occur.

Modifying the federal levee would generally have negligible or minor impacts to wildlife from

construction noise, but little wildlife habitat exists along this corridor. At the Halberg property, minor

impacts from building the tribal hatchery or wastewater pumping plant are possible because wildlife use

this land more. Extending the levee southward and/or placing the wastewater pipeline in dense riparian

and upland mixed forest could have moderate temporary effects because of the relatively undisturbed

nature of the forest.

Minor temporary impacts to wildlife from construction noise and permanent impacts from the presence of

the Port Angeles water treatment plant are likely. Additional minor impacts to upland wildlife from

installing culverts, and at Morse Creek to build fish-holding/rearing ponds, are likely.
Summary

xiii

Helicopter noise to outplant fish above Glines Canyon Dam could have moderate, adverse, localized

impacts to wildlife. Additional minor to moderate impacts to wildlife from the use of heavy equipment,

helicopters, and barriers such as fencing to revegetate the reservoir lands are possible.

No impairment of park wildlife would occur. 

Species of Special Concern

The following species could occur in the project area:

Mammals — The Pacific fisher has been observed in Olympic National Park, but not for many

years. Four species of bats are considered federal species of concern (Townsend’s big-eared bat,

Keen’s myotis, long-eared myotis, and long legged myotis).

Birds — Bald eagles, federally listed as threatened, have been observed year-round in the area.

No individuals or nests have been observed in areas proposed for development. The northern

spotted owl, federally listed as threatened, typically inhabits unlogged, old-growth forests or

mixed forests of mature and old-growth timber. No nest sites or old-growth habitat areas are

available in the vicinity of planned construction sites. The marbled murrelet, federally listed as

threatened, uses the Elwha River valley as a corridor between nesting sites upriver from the site

where mitigation facilities would be built and the coast where it feeds. 

Harlequin ducks, a federal species of concern, typically breed in forests adjacent to swift-moving

streams. Large numbers of ducks have been found near the river mouth in recent winter surveys,

although no individuals have been sighted in any of the 2003 wildlife surveys of the project area

considered in this SEIS. 

The northern goshawk is both a federal and state species of concern. It is a breeding resident in

the project area, but it occupies mature conifer forest not generally available in the project area.

The pileated woodpecker is a state species of concern that require large trees and snags for

reproduction, as well as for feeding. Two pileated woodpeckers were sighted in the project area

during the surveys for this SEIS.

Amphibians — Northern red-legged frogs, tailed frogs, and western toads are all federal species of

concern in the project area. Tailed frogs are also a state-monitored species. 

Fish — Ten species of anadromous fish co-exist in the Elwha River. Several of these species are

offered special protection, or are currently being monitored and considered for protection.

Chinook salmon and bull trout are both currently listed as federally threatened species. Most

other Elwha salmon and anadromous trout have been listed as Washington State species of

concern. 

Plant Species — No plant species are federally listed as threatened or endangered; 13 are

considered sensitive by Washington State. This means they are vulnerable or declining, and could

become endangered or threatened without active management. Although these 13 are known to

occur in the park or region, none was found in the project area. 

Under the no-action alternative most species of special concern would continue to be adversely affected

by the presence of the dams, either because habitat is inundated or occupied by the hydroelectric projects,

or salmon prey species would remain unavailable. The population of native (not hatchery raised) chinook

and the lower river subpopulation of bull trout would die off.
Summary

xiv

It is unlikely that the proposed mitigation facilities would have any impact on the Pacific fisher, although

moderate impacts to colony bats could occur. Minor to moderate temporary impacts on bald eagles

wintering in the river construction area, or moderate, temporary impacts on nesting eagles at the river

mouth from levee construction, could also occur. Helicopter use could have minor to moderate, temporary

impacts on both northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets; additional minor to moderate impacts to

murrelets traveling along the river corridor between nesting sites upriver and the coast would be possible

because of construction activities. Wintering harlequin ducks could experience minor effects from the

construction of the levee extension northward. Construction noise and the removal of trees might have a

minor to moderate impact on pileated woodpeckers. Filling small wetlands or indirect impacts to larger

wetlands might result in minor to moderate impacts to northern red-legged frogs and tailed frogs. Grading

or excavating could have minor to moderate impacts to western toads. Turbidity during construction

could result in minor impacts on chinook salmon and Pacific and brook lampreys. Turbidity could also

cause moderate, temporary impacts on bull trout because this species is more sensitive to water quality.

Extending the levees could have minor impacts on chinook or bull trout through the removal of riparian

vegetation and other habitat. Additional mitigation measures designed to protect chinook and bull trout

during dam removal, to prevent the loss of stock, and to increase the chance and pace of successful

restoration would potentially have major benefits for both species. No impairment to park resources or

values would occur.

Air Quality

Ambient air pollutant concentrations for the region surrounding Olympic National Park are within

national, state, and local air quality standards, likely attributable to the low population density of nonurban areas and the lack of many older, large industrial sources. Major sources of air pollutants (greater

than 0.907 metric tons or 100 tons per year) in Clallam County are the Nippon Paper Industries and K-Ply

mills. Silvicultural burns, smoke from wood-burning stoves, dust and other particulate matter generated

from vehicles using unpaved roads, vehicle exhaust, and smoke from campfires also affect air quality in

the middle and lower Elwha valley area and Olympic National Park. Clallam County and the project site

are designated as attainment areas (i.e., concentrations below the standards) for all criteria pollutants.

Olympic National Park has been designated a Class I area under the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) program. Class I areas receive special air quality protection. 

The hydroelectric projects do not adversely affect air quality. Therefore, under the no-action alternative,

current high air quality within the study area would continue.

The proposed actions described in this SEIS would have temporary effects on air quality. The crushing of

concrete at a privately owned facility would contribute to localized emissions, but they would be within

permitted levels. Vehicular emissions from heavy construction equipment are expected to have a

negligible impact compared to stationary sources or dam removal, but there might be a minor or even

moderate effect on some nearby residents, staff at the rearing channel, or construction personnel. There

would be no impairment of park resources or values.

Noise

The study area and the surrounding region are now relatively quiet, with few sources of noise, except car

traffic along the river, and landfill and airport operations near the proposed Port Angeles water treatment

plant. 
Summary

xv

Under the no-action alternative, these minor cumulative noise impacts would continue. Noise from the

hydroelectric projects has negligible impacts on residents in the area now. 

Under the proposed action noise from trucks and construction equipment would result in minor, primarily

site-specific impacts for a few residents. Residents in the vicinity of the northern end of the federal levee,

which is proposed for raising, strengthening, and extending, could experience moderate or even major

impacts for short periods. Impacts of concrete crushing would be within permitted limits. Operation of the

Elwha and Port Angeles water treatment plants could have short-term, severe impacts to staff, which

would be mitigated to negligible or minor through the use of protective gear required by the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration. No park soundscapes would be impacted as a result of the proposed

action; therefore, no impairment of park values or resources would occur.

Cultural Resources

The Elwha River valley is rich in cultural resources that include buildings, structures, landscapes,

traditional cultural properties, ethnographic resources, and archeological sites. The valley is the homeland

of the Lower Elwha Klallam people, and the river remains at the heart of their ceremonial, cultural, and

spiritual existence.

Euro-Americans began to settle and acquire lands in the lower valley in the 1860s. Exploration and

development (primarily ranching/farming) of the valley was limited by climate and growing season

restrictions. Development activities eventually declined on lands set aside for the Olympic Forest Reserve

in 1897, Mount Olympus National Monument in 1909, and Olympic National Park in 1938. 

The Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams, hydropower plants, and associated facilities are now listed on the

National Register of Historic Places as historic districts. Several other resources listed on the national

register reflect the role of the federal government in the Elwha River valley (the Elwha Ranger Station

and campgrounds). No prehistoric cultural resources eligible for the national register are known to exist in

the project area. 

The no-action alternative would result in continuing and cumulative, major adverse impacts to cultural

and tribal resources, including decimated fish runs and altered shellfish harvest; the loss of a free-flowing

river important to tribal ceremonies, culture, and spirituality; flooded villages, camps, homesteads, plant

gathering/preparation sites, and possibly burial sites. The hydroelectric projects would continue as

historically important early examples of dams and power plants. 

Under the proposed action mitigation actions would have the potential to adversely affect cultural

resources within the study area in various ways, primarily by ground disturbance and filling activities.

Adherence to the programmatic agreement, as appended to the FEIS, would ensure that major adverse

impacts to cultural resources would be avoided, and only minor adverse impacts at most are expected. No

park resources or values would be impaired.

Socioeconomic Environment

The highest growth in employment in Clallam County between 1985 and 1990 was in the government,

retail / wholesale, and construction sectors. More recently, the county’s growing retirement community

has created employment gains in the service sector. The county has lagged behind the state in

employment growth, while exceeding the state in the retail/wholesale and government sectors.
Summary

xvi

Commercial and recreational fishing have been a cornerstone of the Clallam County economy, with

recreation and tourism also playing major roles. 

Currently, the Nippon Paper Industries pays an estimated $2.1 million per year for power at their mill.

This would continue or increase over time as the cost of power increases under the no-action alternative.

Fishery benefits to business would continue at $840,000 per year or less. Additional losses in commercial

and recreational fishing would maintain lower incomes and high unemployment levels. Recreation and

tourist expenditures would increase slowly from 1993 levels of $117 million. 

The need to modify water quality, water supply, and flood mitigation would increase the cost of dam

removal and river restoration. The measures described in this SEIS would cost $69 million, whereas those

in the FEIS were estimated to cost $27 million. Flood protection and cultural resources mitigation would

increase from $4.2 million to $17 million. Other factors, such as increased operation costs and inflation

have also added to the total cost, now estimated at $182.5 million, compared to the $113 million reported

in the 1996 FEIS. Because costs have changed, benefits were recalculated. Total benefits of dam removal

over 100 years of project life, at a 3% rate of discount, would total more than $355 million, a nearly 2:1

ratio of benefits to costs and a moderate to major, long-term, beneficial impact for several sectors of the

local economy, including commercial fishing, sportfishing, and recreation and tourism spending. 

Public Health and Safety

Construction and operation of mitigation facilities could present safety problems for workers. Since the

FEIS was published, household debris, underground storage tanks, and contaminated soil under the

former gas pump island at the former Elwha Resort have been removed, as well as all of the old residences. Contaminated soil at the former transmission line pole storage area at Elwha Dam has also been

removed.

Under the no-action alternative hazardous materials (asbestos, lead-based paints, and PCBs) found at the

hydroelectric projects at both dam sites would remain. The aging transformers are leaking; these and other

features would need to be maintained, replaced, or removed to prevent further contamination of the dam

sites. Total petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding the state allowable limit would also need to be remediated.

No impairment to park resources from hazardous materials would occur. 

Impacts to workers or the public from exposure to fuel or chemicals during the construction of proposed

mitigation facilities would be minimal, and would be further reduced to negligible or minor through the

use of best management practices. The use of hazardous chemicals during plant operation would be

monitored, and standard containment and cleanup procedures would result in negligible to minor impacts.

The accident risk to individuals continuing to work on the project during the deconstruction phase could

increase simply because of their long-term association with the project, but OSHA regulations would

minimize the risk. 
xvii

Contents

Purpose and Need.....................................................................................1

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................................. 2

Objectives in Taking Action..................................................................................................... 4

Scope of the Actions Analyzed................................................................................................. 4

City of Port Angeles Municipal Supply ....................................................................................4

Industrial Users and State of Washington Chinook Salmon Rearing Facility...........................5

Tribal Fish Hatchery..................................................................................................................5

Dry Creek Water Association....................................................................................................5

Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation ...........................................................................................6

Flooding ....................................................................................................................................6

Fish Restoration Plan.................................................................................................................6

Revegetation..............................................................................................................................7

Dam Rubble...............................................................................................................................7

Wildlife — Trumpeter Swans ...................................................................................................7

Relevant Laws, Policies, and Plans......................................................................................... 7

Organic Act ...............................................................................................................................7

Olympic National Park Enabling Legislation............................................................................8

Resource Issues and Concerns................................................................................................ 9

Issues and Concerns Considered in This Document .................................................................9

Issues Not Carried Forward.....................................................................................................12

Alternatives .............................................................................................13

Water Supply and Water Quality Mitigation ........................................................................ 13

Industrial and Fishery Facilities ..............................................................................................13

Port Angeles Municipal Supply ..............................................................................................20

Flooding Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 22

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Flood Control ............................................................................22

Other Flood Control Mitigation ..............................................................................................27

Groundwater Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 30

Dry Creek Water Association..................................................................................................30

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Wastewater Treatment...............................................................34
Contents

xviii

Fisheries Mitigation............................................................................................................... 37

Fish Restoration Plan...............................................................................................................37

Tribal Hatchery........................................................................................................................40

Revegetation Plan .................................................................................................................. 42

Removal of Dam Rubble........................................................................................................ 43

Wildlife — Trumpeter Swans ................................................................................................ 43

Actions Considered but Rejected ........................................................................................... 44

Water Intake Options...............................................................................................................44

Water Treatment Options ........................................................................................................46

Groundwater Changes .............................................................................................................47

Tribal Fish Hatchery................................................................................................................48

Other Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................48

Environmentally Preferred Alternative................................................................................. 48

Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act, Sections 101 and 102 .................... 49

Affected Environment ............................................................................55

Fluvial Processes and Sediment Transport .......................................................................... 55

Flooding ................................................................................................................................. 56

Levees......................................................................................................................................57

Flooding Frequency.................................................................................................................57

Surface Water......................................................................................................................... 58

Elwha River.............................................................................................................................58

Morse Creek ............................................................................................................................59

Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 60

Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics (Lower Elwha River)...........................................................60

Groundwater Levels ................................................................................................................60

Groundwater Use.....................................................................................................................61

Groundwater Quality...............................................................................................................61

Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries......................................................................... 61

Pink Salmon ............................................................................................................................63

Chum Salmon..........................................................................................................................63

Sockeye Salmon ......................................................................................................................64

Steelhead Trout .......................................................................................................................64

Sea-run and Resident Cutthroat Trout.....................................................................................64

Resident Rainbow Trout and Other Species............................................................................65
Contents

xix

Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 65

Vegetation............................................................................................................................... 66

Riparian and Upland Vegetation .............................................................................................67

Wetland Vegetation.................................................................................................................70

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 73

Mammals.................................................................................................................................74

Birds ........................................................................................................................................74

Reptiles and Amphibians.........................................................................................................76

Species of Special Concern.................................................................................................... 76

Mammals.................................................................................................................................76

Birds ........................................................................................................................................77

Amphibians .............................................................................................................................79

Fish..........................................................................................................................................80

State Sensitive Plant Species...................................................................................................82

Air Quality.............................................................................................................................. 83

Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 84

Cultural Resources................................................................................................................. 84

Socioeconomic Environment................................................................................................. 86

Clallam County........................................................................................................................87

Fisheries and Fish Processing..................................................................................................87

Recreation/Tourism.................................................................................................................88

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe....................................................................................................88

Ediz Hook................................................................................................................................89

Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................................... 89

Worker Safety..........................................................................................................................89

Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................90

Impacts ....................................................................................................91

Flooding ................................................................................................................................. 92

Summary of Regulations.........................................................................................................92

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ....................................................................................92

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative .....................................................................................93

Impacts of the Proposed Action ..............................................................................................96

Surface Water....................................................................................................................... 104

Summary of Regulations and Policies...................................................................................104

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................104

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................105

Background Information on Impacts of Dam Removal ........................................................107
Contents

xx

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................109

Groundwater ........................................................................................................................ 116

Summary of Regulations and Policies...................................................................................116

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................116

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................116

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................118

Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries....................................................................... 124

Summary of Regulations and Policies...................................................................................124

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................125

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................125

Background Impacts of Dam Removal .................................................................................129

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................130

Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 134

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................134

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................135

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................136

Vegetation............................................................................................................................. 142

Summary of Laws, Regulations, and Policies.......................................................................142

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................142

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................143

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................146

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 152

Summary of Regulations and Policies...................................................................................152

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................152

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................153

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................155

Species of Special Concern.................................................................................................. 161

Summary of Laws, Regulations, and Policies.......................................................................161

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................161

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................162

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................167

Air Quality............................................................................................................................ 174

Summary of Regulations and Policies...................................................................................174

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................174

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................175

Impacts of Proposed Action ..................................................................................................176

Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 178

Summary of Regulations and Policies...................................................................................178

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................179

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................180

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................180
Contents 

xxi

Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................183 

Summary of Laws, Regulations, and Policies .......................................................................183 

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................183 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................185 

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................186 

Section 106 Summary ...........................................................................................................190 

Socioeconomic Environment...............................................................................................191 

Summary of Regulations and Policies...................................................................................191 

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts ..................................................................................191 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................192 

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................193 

Public Health and Safety.....................................................................................................194 

Summary of Regulations and Policies...................................................................................195 

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................196 

Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................197 

Consultation and Coordination.........................................................199 

History of Public Involvement ............................................................................................199 

Public Scoping for this SEIS ...............................................................................................199 

Cooperating Agencies and Consultation............................................................................201 

List of Preparers and Contributors....................................................................................201 

Preparers................................................................................................................................201 

Contributors...........................................................................................................................202 

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving Copies of the SEIS.......................203 

Appendixes, Glossary, References Cited, Index ..............................205 

Appendix A: Best Management Practices .........................................................................207 

Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.....................209 

Glossary ................................................................................................................................238 

References Cited...................................................................................................................243 

Index......................................................................................................................................252 
Contents

xxii

Figures

Study Area ....................................................................................................................................................3

Elwha Surface Water Intake and Elwha Water Treatment Plant: Conceptual Designs ..............................17

Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant: Conceptual Design..........................................................................23

Existing and Proposed Levee Alignments ..................................................................................................26

DCWA Alternative Water Distribution Corridors......................................................................................32

Elwha Heights Water System Alternatives.................................................................................................33

Proposed Wastewater Alignments ..............................................................................................................36

Wetlands: Elwha Water Treatment Plant Site.............................................................................................71

Lower Elwha Valley Reservation Community Groundwater Resources..................................................122

Tables

Table 1. Other Structures Subject to Flooding — No-Action Alternative ............................................27

Table 2. Mitigations for Structures Subject to Flooding — FEIS Previously Proposed Action ...........28

Table 3. Mitigations for Structures Subject to Flooding — SEIS .........................................................29

Table 4. Summary Comparison of the Alternatives ..............................................................................50

Table 5. Summary of Impacts ...............................................................................................................51

Table 6. Elwha River Water Quality Impact Indicators ........................................................................59

Table 7. In-River Life Cycle Stages of Elwha Salmonids.....................................................................62

Table 8. Number of Hatchery Chinook Returning to the Elwha River .................................................80

Table 9. Benefits of Clallam County Commercial Fishing in Real 2001 Dollars .................................88

Table 10. Elwha River Valley Structures and Existing Flood Conditions for the 100-Year Frequency

Flood Event .............................................................................................................................94

Table 11. Structural Mitigation for Flooding Impacts.............................................................................97

Table 12. Elwha River Turbidity Measurements Upstream and Downstream of the Dams

during a Storm.......................................................................................................................105

Table 13. Water Quality Impact Indicators ...........................................................................................106

Table 14. Short-term Water Quality Impacts from Dam Removal .......................................................108

Table 15. Long-term Water Quality Impacts from Dam Removal........................................................109

Table 16. Mitigation Measures Included in the Proposed Action .........................................................109

Table 17. Water Quality Before and Following Industrial Treatment — Elwha Water

Treatment Plant .....................................................................................................................110

Table 18. Air Quality Data and Standards for Olympic National Park (2002) .....................................175

Table 19. Total Approximate Air Emissions Related to Construction of Mitigation Facilities ............177

Table 20. Annual Emissions of Particulate Matter Less than 10 Micrometers (PM10) .........................178

Table 21. Construction Equipment Noise Levels (FEIS 1996) .............................................................179

Table 22. Typical Sound Levels (Continuous Noise)............................................................................181

Table 23 Estimated Decibels for Continuous Construction Noise at Reference Distances under Best

and Worst Atmospheric Conditions ......................................................................................181

Table 24. Summary of the Net Present Value of Elwha River Restoration Market Benefits

over Project Life (3% Discount Rate) ...................................................................................194
xxiii

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in the text and bibliographic citations:

cfs – cubic feet per second

DCWA – Dry Creek Water Association

DEIS – draft environmental impact statement

DO – Director’s Order (NPS)

EIS – environmental impact statement

EO – Executive Order

ESWI – Elwha surface water intake

EPHA – Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association

EWTP – Elwha water treatment plant (industrial/fisheries/municipal pretreatment use)

FEIS – final environmental impact statement (in this document FEIS refers specifically

to the Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Final Environmental

Impact Statement)

gpd – gallons per day

gpm – gallons per minute

LEKT – Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

mgd – million gallons per day

mg/L – milligrams per liter

μg/L – micrograms per liter

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NPS – National Park Service 

NPI – Nippon Paper Industries

OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAWTP – Port Angeles water treatment plant (municipal use)

PNPTC – Point-No-Point Treaty Council

ppb – parts per billion

ppm – parts per million

RM – river mile

SEIS – supplemental environmental impact statement

USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS – U. S. Geological Survey
Contents

xxiv
1

Purpose and Need

Introduction

Two hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River in Washington State currently block access to the bulk of the

river, adversely affecting the river ecosystem and the native anadromous fisheries because neither dam

was built with fish passage facilities. The lowest of the two dams — the Elwha Dam — is only 4.9 miles

from the mouth of the river and was completed in 1913; this dam has formed the Lake Aldwell reservoir.

The second dam — the Glines Canyon Dam — is 8.5 miles farther upstream and was completed in 1927;

it forms the Lake Mills reservoir. Even though other factors have affected Elwha River salmonid

populations, these dams are the primary cause of a precipitous decline in fish runs, to fewer than 3,000

naturally spawning fish today, compared to an estimated 392,000 fish prior to dam construction. Those

species that still migrate into the Elwha River to spawn are restricted to the lower 4.9 miles of river, and

the problems associated with crowding into this space are exacerbated by the near-elimination of

spawning gravel and higher-than-normal water temperatures caused by the dams and reservoirs. The loss

of fish from 93% of the Elwha River has resulted in severe impacts to the entire river ecosystem due to

the loss of nutrients and carcasses and the subsequent effects on aquatic and terrestrial vegetation and

wildlife.

Congress passed the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act on January 3, 1992 (Public

Law [PL] 102-495; hereafter referred to as the Elwha Act). This act authorized the full restoration of the

Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries. Subsequently, two environmental impact

statements (EISs) were completed to analyze alternatives to implement the act. 

1. The Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration: Final Environmental Impact Statement (June 1995)

evaluated options for restoring the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries and is

referred to in this document as the Programmatic FEIS. The “Record of Decision” that followed

selected the removal of both dams as the only option that would accomplish full ecosystem

restoration. 

2. The Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Final Environmental Impact Statement

(November 1996) examined two ways of removing the dams, as well as the sediment stored behind them. It is referred to throughout this document as the FEIS or the Implementation FEIS.

The “Record of Decision” selected “river erosion” as the preferred alternative for removing

sediment. (The November 1996 FEIS included only specific changes to the DEIS, not the entire

text of the draft document. Subsequently, a compilation of the DEIS and FEIS was prepared that

includes all the text of the draft, along with changes presented in the FEIS, plus responses to

comments and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Biological Opinion.”) 

The impacts of the dams to the entire Elwha River ecosystem are analyzed and documented in both EISs,

and extensive public involvement accompanied them. (Both the Programmatic FEIS and the Implementation FEIS can be found on the Internet at <http://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm>.) 

The choices to remove both dams, and to follow the actions described in the Implementation FEIS for the

river erosion alternative, remain the same and are not subject to further public comment. 

Work has not yet begun to remove the dams, and in the intervening years the U.S. Department of the

Interior (USDI) has continued to study the nature of the sediment behind the dams and other factors that
Purpose and Need

2

will help quantify downstream impacts from removing the dams. In addition, some changes unrelated to

the project have occurred. The combination of these factors means some reevaluation of mitigation

measures is in order, in particular those measures aimed at protecting either water quality or quantity for

downstream users. It is the impacts of these new mitigation measures, as well as any updates relevant to

decision-making, that are the focus of this Draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (PL 91-190, as amended) requires federal agencies to

evaluate environmental impacts before making decisions on actions that may have significant effects. The

regulations that guide agencies on how to implement NEPA (40 CFR 1500–1508) state that a supplement

to an EIS is warranted if either there is a “substantial change” to the selected action that is “relevant to

environmental concerns,” or “there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to

environmental concerns and bearing on the selected action or its impacts.” Although changes to water

quality mitigation represent only one feature of the project, they account for a higher percentage of the

cost than actions directly related to dam removal. By this indicator alone, the changes would be

considered “substantial.” The changes and new information described above also trigger the second

criterion for preparing a supplement, as there are both new circumstances and new information relevant to

environmental concerns. 

The agencies involved in preparing this SEIS include the National Park Service (NPS) as lead agency, the

Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as cooperating agencies, and the

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe as a cooperating tribal government. Technically, this document supplements

the Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Final Environmental Impact Statement. It has

been written to stand alone for convenience; as previously mentioned, copies of the FEIS are also

available at the Elwha Restoration Project Office and on the Internet.

Purpose of and Need for Action

The need for ecosystem restoration, dam removal, and sediment management resulted in the preparation

of the two environmental impact statements described above. In addition to analyzing two detailed dam

removal and sediment management alternatives, the Implementation FEIS proposed mitigation for

impacts of dam removal related to water supply, water quality, flooding, changes in groundwater levels,

and impacts to fish. Since the release of the FEIS, several changes have prompted the participating

agencies to consider taking a different direction for many of these mitigation measures. For example,

using treated surface water rather than subsurface supplies makes more sense now. Changes such as

requirements for treatment of the city’s municipal water supply, the need to keep the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) fish-rearing channel open during dam removal, and other

factors have meant revising a treatment strategy for water quality since the FEIS was distributed. 

Other changes since 1996 that bear on the proposed action include an increase in the number of

reservation residents whose septic systems would be affected by the rise in surface water level of the

river, the listing of two species of fish as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the changing

economics of recycling concrete. In addition, more detail is now available on actions that would occur as

part of the revegetation of the dewatered reservoir sites.

These changes are the reason an SEIS is needed. However, the primary reason mitigation is needed is the

requirement of the Elwha Act to protect municipal and industrial water users and the Dry Creek Water

Association (DCWA) from the possible adverse effects of dam removal. The National Park Service has

also identified the need to investigate and provide, where appropriate, flood protection, wastewater

mitigation, and hatchery water protection and facility modifications. 
Objectives in Taking Action

3

Study Area

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

Map prepared by Randall E. McCoy
Purpose and Need

4

Objectives in Taking Action

Objectives are specific statements of purpose. They are goals that must be met for the project or proposal

to be considered a success. The following were derived by an interdisciplinary team of staff from the

National Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation.

• The Elwha Act requires that Elwha River municipal and industrial water users be protected from

the possible adverse effects of dam removal. This means that the quality and quantity of their

water must be protected during the sediment release period when the dams are removed. 

• Water quality during and following dam removal for up to five years is expected to have pulses of

very high turbidity interspersed with relatively clean periods. Water quality treatment for supplies

subject to these pulses (such as surface water, or groundwater that is hydraulically connected to

the river) must be able to effectively provide water of appropriate quality. 

• The National Park Service has identified other measures to mitigate possible adverse effects of

dam removal, including flood protection for affected properties and infrastructure that is

consistent with current flood protection levels and mitigation for possible impacts to septic

systems in the lower river area.

• Chinook salmon and bull trout will be protected to the maximum extent possible.

• Construction and other activities associated with changes described in this SEIS will be

accomplished while minimizing impacts to resources.

Scope of the Actions Analyzed

This section describes the actions evaluated in this SEIS and the rationale behind them. Each is described

in more detail in the “Alternatives” chapter. 

City of Port Angeles Municipal Supply

The 1996 FEIS stated that impacts of dam removal on the city’s municipal water quality would be

mitigated with a temporary “package in-line filter treatment plant.” Changes in supply might also occur

from dam removal, as the river is expected to be more “dynamic” and migrate back and forth in its

channel more frequently. The city currently supplies its municipal customers by means of a Ranney

collector on the east bank of the river. A second collector on the west bank was proposed in the FEIS.

Limited bench testing of the material behind the dams indicates a Ranney collector could be ineffective

during periods of high turbidity because the aquifer would be susceptible to blinding (e.g., “sealing” of

the surface). A surface water diversion to ensure supply during these times is considered preferable

because of its predictability. The impacts of a surface diversion are evaluated in this SEIS. 

The agencies are also pursuing building a permanent treatment plant for municipal customers for several

reasons. Since the FEIS was released, the water from the city’s current Ranney collector has been

reclassified from groundwater to “groundwater under the influence of surface water,” and it must now

meet requirements for treatment under both the enhanced surface water treatment rule and disinfection /

disinfectant by-product rule. This means the city must permanently increase its level of treatment with or

without dam removal. The Washington State Department of Health also requires that water permanently

meet surface water treatment rule criteria. In other words, Port Angeles could not lessen the degree of

treatment even after sediment levels have stabilized following dam removal. 
Scope of the Actions Analyzed

5

Industrial Users and State of Washington Chinook Salmon Rearing Facility

Surface water for both the city’s industrial users and the Washington State salmon-rearing facility is

currently diverted from the river at a rock diversion structure into a tunnel south of the old Washington

State Highway 112 “one-lane” bridge. The mitigation for increased turbidity during and following dam

removal that was analyzed in the FEIS include a buried infiltration gallery to collect water filtered

through the riverbed and open-channel treatment with flocculants. The WDFW rearing channel would be

closed during dam removal and for a few years afterward. Since the FEIS was released, lab and field tests

on the material that would be released from the dams indicate that the infiltration gallery might not be

effective because of “blinding,” caused by fines filling the surface of the riverbed to such a degree as to

effectively seal it. Should this occur, the yield would be significantly reduced during high turbidity

events.

In addition, the chinook salmon reared in the state’s facility have been listed as a federally threatened

species, and the facility now needs to remain open during and for a period of time following dam

removal. The rearing facility will therefore need a source of clean water. 

As noted above, the proposed action analyzed in this SEIS would examine a modified surface diversion to

supply a reliable source of water for industrial needs during dam removal. This source would feed into an

industrial treatment facility for Nippon Paper Industries using a treatment method similar to that identified

in the FEIS. Because the rearing facility must remain open, the proposed action in this SEIS includes

supplying it and the tribal hatchery with some of the treated water from the industrial facility mixed with

groundwater. 

Tribal Fish Hatchery

The tribal fish hatchery is central to protecting and producing Elwha anadromous fish for restoration.

Currently, water for the hatchery is collected through a shallow infiltration gallery at river mile (RM) 1.0

and is supplemented with well water. Additions to this facility were proposed in the FEIS to sustain yield,

as were two new proposed wells, mixing and aeration chambers, and systems intended to transmit and

distribute water within the hatchery that would allow dilution with clean water to maintain quality. Since

the FEIS, the river has migrated away from the infiltration gallery, significantly reducing yield. In

addition, lab and field tests on the material that would be released from the dams indicate the infiltration

gallery could be ineffective during high turbidity events because of the blinding phenomenon described

above. Also, investigations by the tribe of increases in the potential groundwater level show that groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the hatchery might be higher than previously predicted, so it might

make more sense to move the hatchery to higher ground. As described in detail in the “Alternatives”

chapter, this SEIS proposes to use water from the industrial pre-treatment facility and groundwater to

supply the tribal hatchery, and it examines an alternative of moving the hatchery. 

Dry Creek Water Association

The Dry Creek Water Association currently includes about 450 homes or businesses whose water supply

needs are met with well water. The river currently floods wells in the 50-year floodplain and is expected

to aggrade such that the wells in the 25-year floodplain would be inundated once the dams have been

removed. Options analyzed in the FEIS included connecting to the city’s municipal water system, making

changes to existing wells, adding a new well farther from the river, or treating water on site with filtration

and chlorination. Proposed mitigation measures for flooding included raising the road grade, one well

house, and two wellheads. Expiration of the Dry Creek Water Association’s 50-year lease with the
Purpose and Need

6

owners of the existing well field is several years closer than when the FEIS was released. The Dry Creek

Water Association is both considering renegotiating with the landowners and searching for a viable

alternate site for their water supply wells. As described in the FEIS, the Dry Creek Water Association

remains hesitant to connect with the City of Port Angeles water supply system because this could

eliminate their autonomy and possibly increase costs to their shareholders. An alternative well field

location and interconnecting pipelines, as well as the original options mentioned in the FEIS, are

examined as part of this SEIS. 

Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation

Since the FEIS was released, additional technical information, including extensive groundwater monitoring, refined topographic data, and computer mapping, have extended the potential impact area where

rises in river elevation are likely to result in elevated groundwater levels, rendering most of the residential

septic systems in these areas ineffective. In addition, home construction on the Lower Elwha Reservation

has increased substantially. The FEIS analyzed a mounded septic system for 10 homes, but now up to 109

homes and facilities are in the potential area of effect. Therefore, a community wastewater treatment

system makes more sense. The tribe has indicated its preference to collect wastewater on the reservation

and convey it to the Port Angeles wastewater treatment facility, and it has reached agreement with the city

to do so.

Flooding

Since the FEIS was released, side channels in the vicinity of a nearly 8,000-foot-long federal levee near

the mouth of the river have proven to be more active than originally predicted. In addition, another 10 or

so residents have built homes near the north end of the levee, where flooding is expected to increase

following the aggradation of riverbed sediments after dam removal. A piece of the levee has already been

reinforced by way of a buried toe following damage from river flow through one of the side channels in

1997. The levee is likely to require extension upstream. The agencies are also examining the potential to

upgrade an existing gravel road from the southern end of the levee to Stratton Road to help provide flood

protection. 

In addition, a refined analysis of sediment distribution completed since the FEIS shows that some areas

may experience more aggradation and increased surface elevations following dam removal than was

originally predicted. A few residences and other facilities may require changes to flood protection as a

result.

Fish Restoration Plan

Since the release of the FEIS, both Elwha River chinook salmon and bull trout have been listed as federal

threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (for bull trout) and National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries*

 (for chinook salmon) will require additions to the fish

restoration plan intended to preserve and protect populations of both species. For example, the WDFW

rearing channel was to have been closed during dam removal, but it is now going to remain open as a

measure to more fully protect the native chinook salmon population during the dam removal process. A

bull trout rescue and removal plan is required, and culverts blocking access to tributaries within Olympic

National Park that could be used by bull trout as a refuge during dam removal must be replaced or

 

* Formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Relevant Laws, Policies, and Plans

7

modified. Efforts to remove eastern brook trout from these tributaries prior to culvert removal would be

undertaken to prevent hybridization with bull trout. To help mitigate impacts to chinook salmon, dam

removal activities would stop during two additional periods each year to facilitate seaward migration of

smolts in the spring and upstream migration of adults in the summer and fall. 

Revegetation

The National Park Service has refined and added detail to its plans for revegetating the dewatered

reservoir areas. Although the plan described in the FEIS remains the same, the means of achieving several

of the actions (such as collecting seeds and cones, controlling invasive nonnative plants, and moving

woody debris) are now better known. As a result, the impacts of these specific mechanisms can be

analyzed, and the SEIS will either do so, or condition future actions to prevent the occurrence of more

than negligible or minor impacts from revegetation.

Dam Rubble

The FEIS analyzed the impacts associated with land disposal of concrete blocks cut from the Glines

Canyon Dam. Since the release of the FEIS, the economics of recycling concrete and crushed concrete

have changed. Because recycling would be environmentally preferable to disposal, this SEIS examines

the option of transporting concrete blocks to a crushing facility to recycle it, rather than disposing of the

blocks in open pit mines or landfills. Some combination of crushing, recycling, and disposal is also

possible.

Wildlife — Trumpeter Swans

The FEIS proposed some options for mitigating the loss of trumpeter swan habitat in both reservoirs, but

it did not select an alternative or analyze its effectiveness. The agencies, after consultation with swan

protection groups and some initial analysis, have concluded that the best mitigation for impacts to swans

is the protection of existing swan habitat from future development. Property currently used by trumpeter

swans in the Sequim / Dungeness and Chimacum Valley areas has been identified, and negotiations are

underway for the purchase of conservation easements on one or more of these parcels. 

Relevant Laws, Policies, and Plans

Organic Act 

By enacting the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Congress directed the U.S. Department of the

Interior and the National Park Service to manage units of the national park system “to conserve the

scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of

future generations” (16 U.S.C. 1). The Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 reiterates this

mandate by stating that the National Park Service must conduct its actions in a manner that will ensure no

“derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as

may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress” (16 U.S.C. 1a-1). 

Despite these mandates, the Organic Act and its amendments afford the National Park Service latitude

when making resource decisions that balance visitor recreation and resource preservation. By these acts

Congress “empowered [the National Park Service] with the authority to determine what uses of park
Purpose and Need

8

resources are proper and what proportion of the parks resources are available for each use” (Bicycle Trails

Council of Marin v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1453 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Yet, courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act and its amendments to elevate resource conservation above visitor recreation. Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 206 (6th

Cir. 1991) states, “Congress placed specific emphasis on conservation.” The National Rifle Association of

America v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 909 (D.D.C. 1986) states, “In the Organic Act Congress speaks of

but a single purpose, namely, conservation.” The NPS Management Policies 2001 also recognize that

resource conservation takes precedence over visitor recreation. The policy dictates “when there is a

conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to

be predominant” (NPS 2000).

Because conservation remains predominant, the National Park Service seeks to avoid or minimize adverse

impacts on park resources and values; however, the National Park Service has discretion to allow negative

impacts when necessary (Management Policies 2001, sec. 1.4.3]).

While some actions and activities cause impacts, the National Park Service cannot allow an adverse

impact that constitutes resource impairment (Management Policies 2001, sec. 1.4.3). The Organic Act

prohibits actions that impair park resources unless a law directly and specifically allows for the acts

(16 U.S.C. 1a-1). An action constitutes an impairment when its impacts “harm the integrity of park

resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of

those resources or values” (Management Policies 2001, sec. 1.4.4). To determine impairment, the

National Park Service must evaluate “the particular resources and values that would be affected; the

severity, duration, and timing of the impact; the direct and indirect effects of the impact; and the

cumulative effects of the impact in question and other impacts” (Management Policies 2001, sec. 1.4.4).

This SEIS, therefore, assesses the effects of the management alternatives on park resources and values,

and it determines if these effects would cause impairment. An impact to a park resource or value is more

likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it would have a major adverse effect on a resource or

value whose conservation is

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Olympic National Park Enabling Legislation

Olympic National Park is currently undergoing an update of its General Management Plan and has

completed its “foundation document,” which reaffirms the park’s understanding of Congress’s intent in

establishing Olympic as a unit of the national park system. As noted above, an impact to a park resource

or value is more likely to constitute an impairment when those resources are named in the establishing

legislation or general management plan of the park. The purpose of Olympic National Park is 

to preserve for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the people, the finest sample of

primeval forests of Sitka spruce, western hemlock, Douglas fir, and western red cedar in

the entire United States; to provide suitable winter range and permanent protection for the

herds of native Roosevelt elk and other wildlife indigenous to the area; to conserve and

render available to the people, for recreational use, this outstanding mountainous country,
Resource Issues and Concerns

9

containing numerous glaciers and perpetual snow fields, and a portion of the surrounding

verdant forests together with a narrow strip along the beautiful Washington coast. 

Although the foundation document also identifies the protection of the park’s more than 3,000 miles of

rivers and streams, as well as spawning and rearing habitat, it does not call out any one river specifically

as integral to the function of Olympic as a unit of the national park system. Therefore, although the loss of

70+ miles of pristine riverine habitat, riparian vegetation, wildlife habitat, and habitat for several species

of anadromous fish in the Elwha River through damming has had profound and adverse impacts on these

resources, these impacts do not constitute impairment of Olympic National Park’s values or resources as

defined by the Organic Act. This conclusion is supported through the analysis in the “Impacts” chapter of

this SEIS.

Resource Issues and Concerns

Issues and concerns are statements of problems that might occur for a particular resource from activities

in the no-action alternative or the proposed action. The extent of the problem is analyzed in the “Impacts”

chapter. Following is a summary of larger substantive environmental issues that have been identified by

agency staff, its contractors, and the public through scoping, which was conducted for 30 days beginning

September 12, 2002. Nine comment letters were received during scoping, and the issues identified by

commenters during this period are addressed in the “Consultation and Coordination” chapter of this

document.

Issues and Concerns Considered in This Document

Surface Water Quality in the Elwha River

Surface water would be affected as a result of site preparation and construction of water supply and water

treatment facilities identified in either the no-action or proposed action alternatives. For instance, heavy

equipment would be required to clear vegetation, dig and bury pipelines, and grade the site for the Elwha

water treatment plant, an industrial facility. These activities would loosen soil, which could wash into the

nearby river and increase turbidity. In-river construction (to replace the existing diversion and intake

facilities, for example) would add to this effect.

Operation of the treatment plant would result in the disposal of residuals in the river during the sediment

phase (for example, during and following dam removal for a few years), which would increase turbidity.

This impact is likely to occur at the same time as very large releases of stored sediment during dam

removal. 

Reliance on infiltration galleries or a second Ranney collector, as identified in the no-action alternative,

would result in the interruption of supply during high turbidity events. Because these sources are directly

linked to surface water, the impacts on supply are discussed in the “Surface Water” section rather than the

“Groundwater” section of this SEIS.

Groundwater Quality or Supply in the Study Area

Groundwater-related issues in this SEIS concern the effectiveness and options for mitigating the impact of

rising groundwater in the lower Elwha River valley, and for protecting groundwater sources. Some

increases in turbidity or localized fuel leaks could also impact wells. 
Purpose and Need

10

Flooding

As noted above, the federal levee may require additional strengthening and extensions both to the north

and south to provide the same degree of flood protection as offered now. A private levee opposite the

federal levee may also require improvements. Other slight changes to the flood protection measures

identified in the FEIS may also be required as a result of refined modeling that shows the way sediment

will distribute after the dams have been removed. These mitigation measures could have noticeable

effects on the floodplain itself and the values it provides to vegetation, recreation, and wildlife.

Elwha River Fisheries

The mitigation of water quality and water supply would be completed before dam removal began.

Construction activities identified above for surface water would result in higher turbidity, which could

cause increased mortality, and reduced reproduction because eggs could be smothered. Heavy equipment

and construction workers on the river shore or conducting in-river work could trample eggs or spawning

habitat, tear or crush riparian vegetation that provides cover for adults and juveniles, and reduce the

concentration of invertebrate prey.

Soils and Vegetation

Preparing sites for the Elwha water treatment plant (industrial) and the Port Angeles water treatment plant

(municipal), laying pipelines, building access roads, and other activities associated with mitigation

measures would require removing soils and vegetation, including riparian vegetation. Construction activities (diversion channel, treatment facilities, levees, roads) could compact soils and decrease the

productivity of vegetation. Soils and vegetation could also be contaminated by accidental spills of fuels

and other potentially hazardous materials during the construction of mitigation facilities.

Seed and cone collection from the park or adjacent areas could involve the loss of seed sources from

localized areas, cutting trees, and disturbance or loss of vegetation from human trampling. 

Wildlife

Constructing water mitigation facilities could adversely affect wildlife directly through noise and the

presence of humans, or indirectly through the removal of habitat. Wildlife could also be disturbed or

displaced by the presence of helicopters or humans on foot as part of the fish restoration and revegetation

plans. 

Identifying and implementing trumpeter swan mitigation would reduce or eliminate the adverse impact

that dam removal would otherwise have on the regional population. 

Species of Special Concern

Measures taken to preserve the native chinook salmon population during dam removal, including maintaining an artificially propagated chinook population at the WDFW fish-rearing facility, ensuring that the

WDFW facility is provided with clean water, and creating a reserve chinook population using Elwha

stock in an adjacent watershed (Morse Creek), would offer beneficial outcomes by increasing the likelihood that chinook salmon would be preserved and restored in the Elwha River following dam removal. 
Resource Issues and Concerns

11

Measures to protect bull trout fall into four categories: (1) a plan for rescuing and removing individual

bull trout; (2) transporting rescued bull trout to clean water areas; (3) improving accessibility to Elwha

River tributaries during and following dam removal; and (4) monitoring effects of dam removal on bull

trout habitat from the mouth of the river to the upstream end of Lake Mills.

At this time, it appears that no additional impact to marbled murrelets, spotted owls, or bald eagles

beyond those already allowable by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the existing “Biological

Opinion” for the removal of the dams (see appendix 7 of the FEIS), would occur as a result of the changes

and additions included in this SEIS. 

No plants of special concern, including tall bugbane, branching montia, giant helleborine, or California

hedge-parsley, have been found where water mitigation facilities, pipelines, or access roads would be

built. If individuals or pockets of plants were later discovered, the National Park Service would provide

input on how to alter these sites, with mitigation to prevent or minimize impacts.

Species without formal listing, but nonetheless of concern to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or

Washington State, could experience temporary effects from construction noise, dust, or increased

turbidity.

Air Quality and Noise

The use of heavy equipment and construction activities to build the water mitigation facilities would

result in emissions from internal combustion engines and dust. Standard mitigation measures would

minimize these impacts. Helicopter flights and facility operation would add small amounts of these same

pollutants. 

Crushing concrete from material removed from either dam would be noisy and would result in increased

dust and other air emissions. 

Cultural Resources

Digging, trenching, grading, or other ground disturbing activities associated with any of the actions proposed in this SEIS could uncover or damage archeological or buried historical resources. 

Socioeconomic Environment

Changes in proposed water quality or water supply mitigation would mean changes in the overall cost of

the dam removal project. This would also mean a change in local spending and associated business

activity. 

On the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation, the shift from individual, onsite septic systems to a community

wastewater treatment system would result in utility bills of approximately $40 per month per residence.

This cost would be paid over time by residents of the Lower Elwha Tribal Community, where the average

annual income is less than $20,000 per year.

Health and Safety

Site preparation and construction activities associated with building water mitigation facilities could be

dangerous for workers. 
Purpose and Need

12

Issues Not Carried Forward 

Several potential issues beyond those identified above were considered by the planning team, but were

dropped from further analysis because they do not meet the requirements to be analyzed in a supplemental

EIS (see page 2) or the impact to a resource would be negligible.

Fluvial Processes and Sediment Transport. Although the Bureau of Reclamation has refined and

updated its sediment model, there are no environmental implications or changes to the proposed

action analyzed in the FEIS. Therefore, this impact topic is not re-analyzed in this SEIS.

Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries Numbers. In addition to the issues identified above, the

agencies have updated and refined the results of their model on the expected success of restoration

efforts. The numbers do not differ substantially from those presented in the FEIS, so they will not be

represented or analyzed in the SEIS.

Living Marine Resources. Some small pulses of turbidity associated with the construction of mitigation facilities might be detectable at the river mouth, but impacts would likely be no more than

negligible to living marine resources.

Socioeconomic Environment. In addition to the issues identified above, there are some changes in

information relevant to the socioeconomic environment, such as the relative contribution of each

sector to the local economy, income and employment rates, and the cost of replacement power.

However, none of these has any bearing on the selection of changes proposed in this SEIS. Therefore

these topics are not updated or analyzed further.

Traffic. The FEIS analyzed the traffic impacts to remove blocks of concrete and rubble from Glines

Canyon Dam and dam rubble from Elwha Dam to nine possible waste disposal locations, with two

different possible start dates, including 2000 and 2005. Construction of water quality facilities is now

scheduled to begin in 2006, and dam removal in 2008. Although the proposed action analyzed in this

SEIS assumes the transport of crushed gravel to recycling centers, no significant difference in the

level of traffic along roads or at intersections of concern are expected from those identified in the

FEIS. Therefore, no additional analysis has been performed. 

Indian Trust Resources. No impacts beyond those described in the FEIS are expected.

Sacred Sites. No known sacred sites would be affected by any of the contemplated actions beyond

those described in the FEIS.

Environmental Justice. No impacts beyond those described in the FEIS are expected.

Aesthetic Resources. No significant changes to impacts described in the FEIS are expected, although

there might be negligible visual impacts from the city’s municipal treatment facility, a tribal

wastewater treatment plant, or distribution pipelines or roads associated with transporting water,

wastewater, or treatment residuals. These impacts would be negligible because they would occur in

locations where very few people live or visit (see the FEIS for more information). 
13

Alternatives

As noted in the “Purpose and Need” chapter, the following actions have already been analyzed in the

Programmatic FEIS and the Implementation FEIS, and no further analysis is provided in this document: 

• the decision to remove both Elwha and Glines Canyon dams 

• specific means to remove the dams and to manage sediment 

• all other actions not specifically discussed in this SEIS

These decisions were made with full public involvement and were formalized in records of decision, in

accordance with the NEPA process.

For the purposes of this supplement to the FEIS, the proposed action is the set of new mitigation measures

described below in the sections entitled “SEIS — Proposed Action.” 

The National Environmental Policy Act also requires that a no-action alternative be analyzed in an EIS

for comparison purposes. Because this is a supplement of an existing environmental impact statement, the

no-action alternative remains as it was described in that document; that is, the dams would remain in

place and current management would continue. Therefore, since the decision to remove the dams has

already been made, the description of existing conditions under the no-action alternative is for

comparison purposes only and is not a viable choice. 

Water Supply and Water Quality Mitigation

Industrial and Fishery Facilities

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

Water for Port Angeles’s industrial client, Nippon Paper Industries (NPI, formerly Daishowa America), is

currently supplied by way of a rock diversion structure across the river at RM 3.3 (see Study Area map on

page 3), which raises the surface elevation high enough to feed into an intake tunnel at RM 3.5. At the

outlet of this tunnel, untreated water is split between an industrial diversion channel, the WDFW chinook

salmon rearing channel, and two bypass channels back to the river. The diversion channel leads to a weir

and screen house that controls flow into the pipeline carrying water to the NPI mill. The surface water

diversion tunnel can handle the maximum City of Port Angeles surface water diversion right of about

96.8 million gallons per day (mgd) or 150 cubic feet per second (cfs). The rock diversion structure may be

incapable of consistently and safely passing pink or chum salmon at certain flows and configurations. 

Nippon Paper Industries treats the water at its mill to reduce turbidity by using a conventional flocculation

and filtration process. Solids resulting from treatment are disposed of in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, as

allowed by the company’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

The WDFW chinook-rearing channel is on the east bank of the river, adjacent to the industrial diversion

channel at RM 2.8–3.0. It consists of an asphalt-lined channel 1,400 feet long and holding 415,000 cubic

feet of water. An adult holding pond is located at the downstream end of the rearing channel. The city has

a contract with the state to provide 50 cfs of water to the rearing channel, but typically no more than 44

cfs is used. Outflow from the facility returns to a side channel by an open channel, with industrial channel
Alternatives

14

overflow used to help attract returning fish. The rearing facility also uses four groundwater wells to

provide cooler, pathogen-free water. 

The Lower Elwha Klallam tribal fish hatchery is near the mouth of the river. Current maximum demand

for the hatchery is about 7.4 mgd (11.5 cfs), which is insufficient to meet current production programs

(some fish are transferred to the rearing channel as needed). An infiltration gallery located about 0.5 mile

upstream of the hatchery delivers 4.5–5.1 mgd to the hatchery during winter months. During the summer,

contributions from this system may approach zero. Two groundwater wells supply approximately 2.9

mgd. A 1998 study found increased turbidity in the river highly correlated with increased turbidity in

water from the infiltration gallery, and that 85%–92% of the river water turbidity was removed through

the infiltration gallery at the flows evaluated (Gathard Engineering and Consulting Services and Larry

Ward 1998).

The no-action alternative would continue these practices, as the dams would not be removed and water

quality and quantity would remain the same as now.

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action 

As noted above, municipal and industrial users of Elwha River water need to be protected from the

release of large quantities of sediment currently stored behind the dams. At the time the FEIS was written,

chinook salmon were not listed as a federal threatened species, so the WDFW rearing channel was

proposed for closure, with the fish transferred to the Solduc hatchery for rearing. This action would have

eliminated the need to invest in water quality protection for the rearing channel during dam removal.

To provide water for industrial users, the rock diversion structure would be removed and an infiltration

gallery composed of perforated pipes would be laid beneath the riverbed in its place. The gallery would

be oversized by a factor of two to provide a capacity of 300 cfs of water filtered through the riverbed to

ensure the delivery of up to 150 cfs (Bureau of Reclamation 1997). A graded sand and gravel filter that

would allow coarse particles to be filtered out of the inflowing water would surround the pipes. The

gallery would remain in place over the long term to protect both industrial users and the WDFW rearing

channel when it reopened. 

A concrete pipe to collect water from the infiltration gallery would be buried along the left bank of the

river to carry collected water to a pumping plant (four 30 cfs pumps and two 15 cfs pumps). Electricity

for the pumping plant would be provided by a 12.5 kilovolt powerline crossing the river at the

downstream end of the infiltration gallery carrier pipe; a switchyard and transformer would be located

near the connection to the powerline. A backup generator would provide power during outages. A 54-

inch-diameter concrete discharge pipeline passing under the Elwha River would convey water from the

pumping plant to a vertical riser structure on the opposite side of the river, where it would connect to the

existing industrial tunnel inlet. 

A treatment system would be built near the river to produce water for the city’s industrial clients. Open

channel industrial treatment would be designed to work in conjunction with the infiltration gallery. It

would detect incoming turbidity and appropriately dose incoming water from the infiltration gallery with

standard drinking-water treatment flocculants, followed by rapid mixing with chemicals and polymers.

The treated water would flow through flocculation basins and into settling basins, where chemicals would

cause suspended sediments to flocculate and settle out, and the clarified water would be conveyed to the

city through the industrial pipeline. Lamella plates would be installed in the settling basins to improve the

efficiency of the clarification process. A collection system would collect the settled solids, which would
Water Supply and Water Quality Mitigation

15

be pumped back to the river for discharge below the city’s Ranney well. A storage building for treatment

chemicals would be built near existing residences at the fish-rearing channel. 

Two flocculation basins, each about 45 feet by 535 feet by 5 feet high, would be required, with a total

capacity of 120,000 cubic feet. Two parallel sedimentation basins, with a 20-foot-wide access road

between them, would be constructed just downstream from the flocculation basins. Each would be 5 feet

high and 1,330 feet long and have a trapezoidal cross section with side slopes of 3:1. Tube settlers would

direct sediment to the center of each channel, and a pumping system would move accumulated sediment

to the river.

An access road would be constructed from the existing road, between the one-lane bridge and a house

near the river, to the pumping plant. About 1,000 feet of the new road would be elevated to provide access

during floods; construction would include culverts to pass flows through existing flood channels. The

remaining 1,500 feet of new road, leading to sediment traps and a backflushing system for the infiltration

gallery, would be constructed at the ground surface. About 1,000 feet of the existing connector road

would be improved.

The FEIS proposed the closure of the WDFW fish-rearing channel for approximately two years during

dam removal, with Elwha chinook production transferred to the Solduc fish hatchery. 

The tribal hatchery would continue to operate during dam removal, and it would be modified before the

project started, including water supply improvements, incubation upgrades, and rearing and support

capabilities. Innovative hatchery practices would be used to simulate natural rearing conditions and to

potentially improve survival in the wild. The FEIS included the construction of a new infiltration gallery

and two new groundwater wells, the redevelopment of existing wells, and the construction of a mixing

basin and aeration system for these water sources. Surface water delivered to the hatchery would be

diluted with higher quality groundwater when needed and would allow for recirculation of hatchery water

during periods of high turbidity. 

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

As noted in the “Purpose and Need” chapter, limited bench testing of the fine material from Lake Aldwell

indicated that the riverbed material above the infiltration gallery could be susceptible to blinding (infilling

of the upper layer of riverbed materials with fine sediment to such a degree that the surface may be

“sealed” and unable to pass water in the quantities needed). Because of this, an alternative water source

for industrial users was deemed necessary. The existing infiltration gallery and proposed infiltration

gallery upgrades to supply and filter water for the tribal hatchery could also suffer these same problems,

requiring an alternative source of water for continued operation. 

Since the release of the FEIS, Puget Sound chinook salmon have been placed on the federal list of protected species and are now classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Included in this

listing are natural and hatchery-origin chinook salmon originating from the Elwha River. This means that

consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required under section 7 (a)(2) of the act and must take place prior

to removal of the dams. Additional mitigation measures named by NOAA Fisheries may be required. 

Rayonier has closed its facility, which initially reduced the volume of water that must be treated.

However, the requirement to better protect chinook meant that the WDFW fish-rearing channel would

require a source of clean water, so much of the initially “unneeded” water would be used to supply the

state facility and the tribal hatchery during and following dam removal. 
Alternatives

16

SEIS — Proposed Action

A recently completed feasibility study examined a number of supply and treatment options to meet

industrial and fisheries demand (URS 2002c). Many of these are summarized in the “Alternatives Considered but Rejected” section. The selected alternative is described below.

Water Supply. After examining several options, and in light of the problems with infiltration galleries

described above, a combined surface source of water for both industrial and fisheries users is proposed

(this would also serve as a backup supply for the Port Angeles municipal water treatment plant). This

approach would also offer cost, logistical, and environmental benefits. Because the existing rock diversion structure affects fish and sediment passage, a new surface water diversion and intake facility would

be required to increase reliability over the existing structure, which might be unstable during very highflow conditions. 

The new diversion and intake facilities would be sized based on their anticipated use subsequent to the

sediment erosion phase. The intake facility would be designed to divert up to 116 mgd (180 cfs) based on

meeting the city’s current ability to withdraw water for industrial purposes and consistent with the city’s

surface water right and to accommodate the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s fish hatchery needs. During

times of high turbidity associated with dam removal, water demand from this facility would be split

between about 11.1 mgd for municipal drinking water, about 14.0 mgd for Nippon Paper Industries, about

14.2 mgd for the WDFW fish-rearing channel, and 12.4 mgd for the tribal fish hatchery. The water intake

and treatment facilities would be sized to meet these demands. The new diversion and intake facilities are

collectively referred to as the Elwha surface water intake. (See the “Elwha Surface Water Intake and

Elwha Water Treatment Plant” figure.)

Five locations and designs for the surface water intake were examined (URS 2002a). A site about 225 feet

upstream of the existing rock diversion structure and intake facility at RM 3.48 was selected based on

further site investigations and on the results of a physical model that was constructed and operated at the

Bureau of Reclamation’s hydraulics laboratory in Denver, Colorado. This location would provide adequate head for flow of river water to the location of the Elwha water treatment plant, which would supply

treated water to the tribal hatchery, the NPI treatment facility, the fish-rearing channel, and as needed, the

Port Angeles water treatment plant (PAWTP). A channel on the control weir would allow diversion

requirements to be met at low flow. This location would also be substantially better than others examined

for fish passage, as the river is straight for several hundred feet downstream and a passable facility could

be readily constructed. Access to the existing rock diversion structure is by walking the steep bank, on the

east side of the river. A proposed means to provide permanent access to the new intake structure is to

construct an approximately 500-foot road along the east bank up to the new intake structure. A stairway

would also be provided from the Crown Z Water Road to the top of the new intake structure to provide

access when the river level is high, preventing access along the new road. On the west side a narrow dirt

road next to the abutment of the one-lane bridge (old Highway 112) would be improved for construction

purposes. 

The conceptual design for the new surface water intake facility consists of a control weir across the river,

with a low-flow section near the right bank where a new intake structure would be located. The low

profile of the control weir would allow for downstream passage of sediment and upstream migration of

adult and juvenile fish.

The existing tunnel now used to convey river water to the industrial diversion channel (as well as to the

WDFW fish-rearing channel) would be used to convey surface water from behind the control weir to the

Elwha water treatment plant. A 225-foot conduit paralleling the river on its east bank would be built to

connect the new intake to this tunnel. 
Water Supply and Water Quality Mitigation

17

Elwha Surface Water Intake and Elwha Water

Treatment Plant: Conceptual Designs
Alternatives

18

Upstream fish passage would be provided by constructing a 1.5% sloped riffle downstream from the

control weir. The riffle would extend about 500 feet downstream from the weir. The constructed riffle

would end near the upstream edge of an island, which may have been created by gravel deposited at the

end of a scour hole in the riverbed caused by the existing diversion structure. The island would need to be

excavated to a lower elevation to improve fish passage and flow characteristics. Vegetation would need to

be removed, but the excavated material from the island could be used to help construct the riffle. 

Downstream fish passage would be accommodated by constructing a new state-of-the-art fish screen

facility in front of the Elwha water treatment plant. A 30-inch fish bypass pipe would be routed back to

the river, following the alignment of the existing overflow channel. 

A temporary diversion channel would be constructed through the floodplain on the west side of the river

to divert river flows while the control weir, intake structure conduits, and riffles of the diversion facility

were being constructed. Cofferdams would be built across the river at the upstream and downstream ends

of the temporary diversion channel to help direct flows and keep the area dewatered during construction.

Construction of this channel would require the removal of several mature cedar trees and understory

shrubs. When construction in the river was completed, the upstream end of the channel would be

recountoured to restore it to as near pre-diversion condition as possible. The downstream end (about 100

feet) would be maintained as a fish resting area, which would include the use of downed trees to enhance

fish habitat.

A system of intake pipes and pumps would be installed on the east bank about 500 feet from the one-lane

bridge to maintain direct flows during the construction of the diversion channel. The pipes would follow

the riverbed to the shore and empty into a wet well. Fish screens would encase the inlet end of the pipe.

Pumps would be mounted above the wet well to distribute the water to existing facilities. The diversion

facility would be permanent and operated as needed. 

Water Quality. Several treatment options were analyzed, including chemical treatment, membrane

filters, and disk filters (URS 2002c). Alternative temporary sources of water, such as from the upper

Elwha River or Morse Creek, were also examined. Due to limitations on water rights, capacity, and

economic feasibility, only chemical treatment was considered feasible (see the “Actions Considered but

Rejected” section, page 44). 

Tribal fishery users have recommended limiting turbidity to continuous loading up to 15 milligrams per

liter (mg/L) with occasional surges up to 50 mg/l (three to five days duration) and up to 80 mg/L (less

than 24 hours duration). Industrial users would receive water with turbidity consistently less than 20

NTUs (a measure of turbidity that is roughly equal to 15 mg/L total suspended solids in the Elwha River).

Modifications to the NPI water treatment facility would allow the mill to additionally treat the supply. 

The treatment scenario is very similar to that described in the FEIS, except it would be designed to clarify

more turbid water because the source would be a surface supply. At the proposed Elwha water treatment

plant, water would be treated through a conventional treatment process consisting of chemical addition,

mixing, and sedimentation. The chemicals would include aluminum sulfate (alum) or polyaluminum

chloride (PAC), caustic soda, and small quantities of a polymer (polyacrylamide) to increase the

efficiency of the coagulation process. Four clarifiers are proposed, with related chemical storage and feed,

influent pumping, rapid mixing, sludge pumping, and flow control features. The treatment facility would

consist of an influent pump station pumping water from a connection to the Elwha surface water intake to

the mixing tanks. The mixing would consist of three parallel trains. Water would then flow to the

sedimentation tanks, each with a capacity of 13 mgd. The capacity of the treatment facility would be 51.8
Water Supply and Water Quality Mitigation

19

mgd (URS 2003g; Bureau of Reclamation 2003b). Because some of the water would be used for fisheries,

the choice of chemicals is important. 

From the clarifiers the treated water would flow to a clearwell structure for distribution to the Port

Angeles water treatment plant, Nippon Paper Industries, the WDFW fish-rearing channel, and the tribal

hatchery. As stated in the FEIS, the Elwha water treatment plant would treat water for industrial

customers (and others, see above) and would be directly adjacent to the rearing channel. 

An estimated 46 tons per day of residual coagulated solids would be produced on average, although on a

peak turbidity day as much as 1,786 tons per day would result from treatment for municipal, industrial,

and fisheries purposes. Because of this high volume, the only feasible option for disposal of these solids

would be to return them to the river. River disposal would only occur during dam removal and the

subsequent three- to five-year sediment erosion period, when turbidities in the river would be very high.

For example, up to 350,000 tons per day of total suspended solids may enter the river in a peak day

during dam removal (see FEIS).

Because the quality of water currently sent to the NPI mill historically averages about 8.7 NTU, and water

quality during dam removal and subsequent erosion of sediments could be as high as 20 NTUs following

treatment at the Elwha water treatment plant, changes to the NPI water treatment facilities in Port Angeles

are anticipated. These changes include moving the injection of coagulant to the delivery pipeline instead

of the rapid mix chambers, the addition of effluent weir troughs and solids collection and removal

equipment to sedimentation basins, and replacing mono-media filters with dual-media filters to increase

the efficiency of solids removal. These changes would result in water with a turbidity less than 3 NTU

and an average of nearly two tons of dry solids for disposal per day (URS 2004c). 

Changes to road access described under “FEIS — Previously Proposed Action” would also be required

under this revised proposed action. Contractors to the Bureau of Reclamation evaluated site access road

alternatives for the Elwha water treatment plant (URS 2003d). One involves upgrading the existing

Crown Z Water Road that leads to the industrial channel and rearing facility. In addition to the upgrades,

traffic control devices could be used at the top and bottom of this road, with vehicle-waiting areas

established on the Elwha River Road. Public access during the construction period could be restricted by

Clallam County, with the exception of WDFW and Port Angeles personnel. A second alternative consists

of new and/or improved existing roads along sections of Kacee Way and two unnamed gravel roads to the

north of the Elwha water treatment plant site. About 2,700 feet of new road and 3,800 feet of upgraded

road would be required. A third road follows Rife Road to one of the unnamed roads identified above for

the second alternative route. About 1,500 feet of new road to connect Rife Road and the existing gravel

road would be required. 

The design vehicle for the roads is assumed to be a semi tractor-trailer combination. The expected vehicle

use and frequency during construction of the Elwha water treatment plant and other facilities at the site

include peaks of 50 heavy vehicles entering and leaving the site per day. Traffic would consist primarily

of concrete delivery trucks entering the site loaded and leaving empty, and dump trucks with trailers and

semi tractor-trailer combinations entering and leaving the site both full and empty at different times.

During operation of the Elwha water treatment plant, traffic would consist of private vehicles for plant

operation and maintenance staff and semi tractor-trailer combinations for chemical deliveries. Peak usage

would be on the order of two to four heavy vehicle trips into and out of the site on a single day. This

would decline further following dam removal, once turbidities had stabilized (URS 2003d).
Alternatives

20

Port Angeles Municipal Supply

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

The city’s municipal water supply is taken from a Ranney collector on the east bank of the Elwha River at

RM 2.8. The Ranney collector was constructed in 1977 and consists of a 13-foot diameter concrete

caisson extending to 62 feet below the ground surface. From the bottom of the caisson, seven laterals

extend outward, providing a total screen length of 528 feet (URS 2002c). The Ranney collector has two

pumps to draw water from the laterals through the surrounding riverbed sand and gravel. The water is

disinfected with chlorine on site before it is distributed to reservoirs and municipal customers. The

distribution system includes five storage reservoirs holding 18 million gallons. Yield from the collector is

approximately 10.7 mgd and depends on the proximity of the river. As noted below in the section on

changes since the release of the FEIS, the water derived from the Ranney collector has recently been

determined to be under the influence of surface water. This change is independent of the Elwha dam

removal and ecosystem restoration project. Regardless of whether dam removal ever takes place, the City

of Port Angeles must change its water treatment to meet surface water treatment standards. Therefore,

some change to the degree and/or location of water treatment would occur under the no-action alternative.

Ranney collector water also currently feeds four homes located just east of the Elwha River, referred to as

the Elwha Heights Water Association. 

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action

The FEIS recognized the potential for decreased yields from the city’s Ranney collector if riverbed

sediment aggraded. Modeling indicated the river was likely to migrate in its channel more frequently

when riverbed sediments were restored; therefore, a second collector was proposed on the opposite side of

the river to maintain yields if the river migrated away from the existing collector.

Fine sediment in the water during and following dam removal might clog the alluvium supplying either

Ranney collector, resulting in increased turbidity and concentrations of manganese and iron in the supply

flowing into the Ranney wells. The FEIS proposed a temporary package in-line filtration plant to treat

these increased concentrations during and for a period of time following dam removal. Used filters would

be disposed of at a landfill site. 

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Since the release of the FEIS, the water collected by the Ranney well has been labeled “groundwater

under the influence of surface water.” This means the water must be treated as if it were from a surface

source, with additional disinfection and/or filtration requirements aimed at removing Giardia cysts,

cryotosporidium, and viruses. The use of a temporary treatment plant would now be questionable because

the Washington Department of Health has indicated it must grant specific permission to allow a

municipality to decrease the level of treatment of its drinking water once a higher standard of water

quality treatment has been provided. The Department of Health is hesitant to grant such permission.

The agencies have questioned the need for a second Ranney well because the river meanders away from

the existing collector now. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has been mitigating the

effect of this migration during extreme low-flow conditions by using temporary in-river ecology blocks

(1–2 cubic yard solid concrete blocks) or other means to divert some of the flow toward its chinook

salmon rearing channel. 
Water Supply and Water Quality Mitigation

21

However, as noted above, migration of the flow away from the city’s collector is not the only problem in

maintaining yield during dam removal. Additional testing of the material behind the dams indicates it is

more likely to blind the alluvial aquifer from which the existing and proposed new Ranney collectors

would draw their water than previously believed. This could make the Ranney collectors unusable during

high turbidity events, which would occur both during dam removal and following it for a period of three

to five years. During these events yield could be lost if the pumps remained on because of the potential

for blinding. 

SEIS — Proposed Action

As noted above in the discussion of water supply for industrial and fishery users, this SEIS proposes to

create a new surface water diversion and intake system (see the “Elwha Surface Water Intake and Elwha

Water Treatment Plant” figure, page 17). The capacity of this system would be sufficient to serve as a

short-term or possibly long-term backup for the city’s municipal customers if needed. It would also be a

more reliable source of water than a subsurface Ranney collector or infiltration gallery during dam

removal. During periods of high turbidity, a surface supply would allow the city to turn the Ranney

pumps off and prevent potential plugging of the subsurface sand and gravels. When these high turbidity

pulses passed, and when sediments stabilized several years after the dams were removed, the city would

be able to send water collected from the Ranney well directly to a new water treatment plant.

For the reasons identified above, this SEIS also proposes building a full-scale permanent surface water

treatment plant, referred to as the Port Angeles water treatment plant (see the “Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant” figure, page 23). The feasibility study examined several treatment options for such a facility,

as well as possible locations (URS 2002a). Although a coagulation/filtration treatment process would use

more land than the proposed package in-line water treatment plant, it would offer the greatest flexibility

and reliability for treating water of unknown or highly variable quality. Three types of processes were

examined (in addition to several other types of treatment reviewed in “Alternatives Considered but

Rejected”), but the “Actiflo” high-rate process is preferred because of its effectiveness in treating lowtemperature, low-turbidity raw water and its ability to treat significant pulses of turbidity to less than 1

NTU (surface water must be treated so that it is no more than 5 NTUs maximum). This process uses

fewer chemicals, and less land is needed for a treatment facility. The study indicated that the coagulation

and sedimentation process using Actiflo, followed by filtration through anthracite, sand, and gravel

layers, would meet all federal and state surface water treatment standards, even if surface water was the

source. The plant would treat water from the Ranney collector, and if needed from the surface diversion

and intake during and following dam removal. 

The Actiflo treatment process includes the following steps. Alum (a coagulant) and caustic soda would be

initially added to untreated water and mixed in the first tank. The water would then enter an injection tank

where microsand (60–120 microns) and polymers would be added to help accelerate the settling of the

coagulated sediment (floc). In a third tank the particles would grow into a high density floc and quickly

settle to the bottom of a fourth tank as sludge. The water would then be drawn off and filtered through

anthracite, sand, and gravel filters. The sludge from the fourth Actiflo tank would be pumped to hydrocyclones to separate sludge from the reusable microsand. If the turbidity of the untreated water was low,

chemical addition could be stopped and the water simply filtered. Before it was distributed, water would

be disinfected with sodium hypochlorite. 

Because the majority of water used in the process would already be filtered through the Ranney collector

or pretreated at the Elwha water treatment plant, the volume of sludge or solids produced would be far

less than in the industrial and fisheries treatment process, ranging from 2,786 dry pounds per day during

average flow to 4,680 dry pounds per day at peak flow rates. At average flow rates this would translate to
Alternatives

22

about 1,241 cubic yards of material composed of 20% solids each year taken from the proposed sludge

drying bed. Although mechanical dewatering would be possible, it would be more costly. 

Siting criteria for a treatment facility included topography, hydraulics, environmental constraints, adjacent

land use and compatibility, access, and proximity to utilities. The plant would require about 5 acres of

land and would consist of a single story and some high bay buildings. The feasibility study examined

several locations owned by the city, the Port of Port Angeles, and private individuals. The top ranked site

was on the same property as the city’s existing landfill, which is scheduled for closure in 2007. The

southern end of this site is not used for disposal and is currently a material storage area. 

The primary elements of the Port Angeles water treatment plant, as shown in the “Port Angeles Water

Treatment Plant” figure, would include the following buildings (moving from south to north) (see URS

2003e): 

• Actiflo / Filter / Clearwell / Administration Building — A concrete structure with a preengineered metal building enclosure of about 150 feet square.

• Backwash Holding and Recycle Storage Basin — The backwash holding basin (25 by 84 feet)

would be concrete, and the recycle storage basin (about 102 by 84 feet) a lined earthen pond. 

• Sludge Drying Bed — A concrete basin (173 by 133 feet), with a sand layer for drying sludge.

As noted above, the Ranney collector currently feeds a small subdivision near the river known as Elwha

Heights. Although water is currently chlorinated before it reaches this subdivision, this will not be the

case once the Port Angeles water treatment plant has been completed. Because the Elwha Heights

residents require treated water, this SEIS analyzes a pipeline connection between them and the DCWA

system (see below for description of options for the Dry Creek Water Association). Such a connection

would involve replacing an existing 4-inch line at Dry Creek along Rife and Walker Ranch Roads with a

6-inch line and extending an additional 6-inch line across an open field to connect Elwha Heights to the

existing DCWA waterline.

Flooding Mitigation

Re-establishing pre-dam riverbed materials would raise the surface elevation of the river in some places.

Where the stream gradient is lower (i.e., the river is less steep), a greater rise in surface elevation would

often be expected, with more potential for flooding. In other words, the 10-year or 100-year flood level

would rise. The following discussion is separated into changes in flood mitigation measures for the 1.5-

mile federal levee that protects much of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s reservation and all other

measures.

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Flood Control 

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

A 7,100-linear-foot setback levee was constructed in 1988 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

provide flood protection (200-year frequency) to the tribal hatchery and community housing. As currently

configured, the north end of the levee begins approximately 450 feet south of a protective beach berm and

extends southward. The southern end of the levee terminates near the south end of the reservation.

Currently, the distance from the river ranges from approximately 370 to 2,400 feet. The levee is closest to

the river near its southern end, where a meander continues to move over time in a northeasterly direction. 
Flooding Mitigation

23

Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant: Conceptual Design

Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant

Conceptual Design
Alternatives

24

The east bank of this meander has approached to within 370 feet of the toe of the levee, which is about

230 feet closer to the levee than its new construction configuration.

At the time the Implementation DEIS was written (April 1996), 10 structures on reservation land near the

mouth of the Elwha were susceptible to backwater flooding in a 200-year flood. Tribal housing development has occurred in this vicinity since completion of the EIS. The no-action alternative would include

the increased development of low-lying areas of the reservation.

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action

The FEIS proposed raising the entire length of the levee an average of 2.5 feet to continue the current

level of protection. Because sediment deposition might induce lateral channel instabilities that could

cause additional meandering and high velocity flow along the levee embankment, about 1,000 feet of the

levee closest to the historic meander belt (near the upstream end) would be thickened with 2 feet of

graded riprap. In addition, the channel lateral migration would be monitored over the life of the levee

project. If the channel migrated to within 100 feet of the levee at any location, armoring of the

embankment would be required in that area.

Near the downstream (north) end of the levee, water from either the river or tides can flow around and

into the downstream portion of the protected area. Consequently, 10 structures in the area at that time

were subject to flooding during a 200-year flood. Increased water elevation in the river as a result of

restoring river sediments would subject five additional structures to backwater flooding. The FEIS

proposed either raising these 15 structures approximately 1 foot or extending the levee approximately 400

feet downstream. Extending the levee would also require the construction and operation of a pumping

facility to pump stormwater and hatchery ditch water from the protected area. Pumping facilities would

likely include multiple pump redundancy, backup generators, and fuel storage provisions.

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Recent topographic and channel bathymetry data have improved the accuracy and precision of flood

modeling efforts. A historic side channel (visible in 1939 aerial photographs) was reactivated during a

flood March 18–19, 1997, and a 1,500-foot segment of the levee was damaged. During this flood the

Elwha River reached a peak flood stage of 21.9 feet at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station

(23,000 cfs). This segment was repaired and significantly improved with rock armoring and a buried toe.

This channel will likely continue to be a threat to the integrity of the levee, and it has influenced future

design considerations.

Topographic data from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys and channel bathymetry data were

used to create a continuous digital terrain model that provides a more detailed view of historic channel

topography and to facilitate use of a greater density of river cross sections in hydraulic modeling efforts to

update the flood analysis for the lower Elwha River. The model was recalibrated based on a January 2002

storm that was about twice the size of the event used to calibrate the model used in the FEIS. 

The LiDAR data showed previously unknown relict channels south of the upstream end of the federal

levee near RM 2 (USACE 2003). The modeling indicated that, with the dams removed, these channels

would be more likely to be reactivated during a 200-year flood and overtop the levee. Dam removal is

predicted to increase the frequency of these overflows to once in 50 years on average, and to increase the

magnitude of overflow significantly during the 200-year flood event. If activated, these channels could

outflank the upstream end of the existing federal levee and inundate housing on the reservation. 
Flooding Mitigation

25

In addition to the above changes, tribal housing development has occurred throughout the reservation,

particularly in the vicinity of the north end of the levee, which currently does not protect residents from

backwater flooding during a 200-year flood. The number of homes in this area has increased to 24.

SEIS — Proposed Action

The alternative analyzed in this SEIS for strengthening the levee includes armoring from an elevation that

matches the existing river thalweg to the proposed top of the levee with 2 feet of rock riprap able to resist

hydraulic forces should the river migrate against the levee. The levee would be raised an average of 3.3

feet, as compared to 2.5 feet in the FEIS, to add freeboard sufficient to stop a 200-year flood.

To protect tribal housing at the north end of the reservation, the levee would be extended approximately

450 feet to the north and tie into the beach berm (see the “Existing and Proposed Levee Alignments”

figure, page 26). A pumping facility could be needed to remove storm water from the east side of the

levee. Pumping facilities could include multiple pump redundancy, backup generators, and fuel storage

provision.

The levee would be extended to the south (upstream) to provide protection against the potential

reactivation of two relic channels located at about RM 2.3 (see the “Existing and Proposed Levee

Alignments” map). There are three alternatives for this levee extension: (1) a 1,600-foot levee positioned

along the floodplain terrace, (2) a raised and strengthened 1,200-foot section of the existing levee haul

road, and (3) a series of spur dikes and deflection structures. The terrace levee would be expected to

provide a similar level of protection as the spur dike complex, and either would keep the southern

reservation (including the recently acquired Halberg property) safe from a 200-year flood. The second

alternative would require cutting diagonally across the Halberg property, exposing 80 acres of the

southwest corner to increased flooding once the dams were removed and aggradation took place. All three

are analyzed in this SEIS, and no one alternative is preferred. 

During the original construction of the federal levee in 1988, a gravel haul road was constructed from the

southern terminus of the levee to the bluff face to the southeast. An analysis of the levee alignment would

include an examination of the feasibility of modifying this road as a flood control facility sufficient to

maintain the current level of flood protection and to resist outflanking of the river. 
Alternatives

26

Existing and Proposed Levee Alignments

insert PDF map

Existing & Proposed Levee Alignments ‘03
Flooding Mitigation

27

Other Flood Control Mitigation 

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

Table 1 shows structures in or near the river that may experience additional flooding as a result of reestablishing the pre-dam riverbed. These are in addition to the federal flood control levee on the Lower

Elwha Klallam Reservation.

Table 1. Other Structures Subject to Flooding — No-Action Alternative

STRUCTURE RM EXISTING FLOODING CONDITIONS

Locally constructed, privately owned levee (west

bank)

0.0–0.1 Protects 30 acres of land for 25- to 50-year frequency

flood.

Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association (EPHA)

wells and residence

1.4 2 EPHA wells and private residence and private well are 2′

below the 100-year frequency flood elevation.

Port Angeles industrial water supply channel 2.5–3.1 Protected from the 100-year flood by an access road.

City of Port Angeles Ranney well collector 2.8 Well caisson and chlorination building are at the 100-year

flood elevation.

WDFW fish-rearing facility 2.8–3.0 Shallow nuisance type flooding occurs with a 100-year

flood.

Water wells at the WDFW fish-rearing facility 2.8 Lies below the 100-year flood level.

West bank residences 3.5 Two structures and associated private wells are 2′ to 3.5′

below the 100-year flood elevation and are flooded by a

10- to 30-year flood.

East bank residences 3.5 Residence and well are 2′ below the 100-year flood level

and are flooded by a 10- to 20-year flood.

Private well 7.9 Situated near the confluence of the Little and Elwha Rivers,

the well lies 2′ to 3′ below the 100-year flood level.

East bank private residences 8.4 Three structures are flooded by 5- to 10-year floods.

River training dike 8.5 No flood protection offered, but high-velocity flows are

redirected. Flooded by a 25-year flood.

East bank private residence and well 9.5 Residence and well are 1.5′ below the 100-year flood

elevation.

Elwha campground 11.0 Campground and well are below the 100-year flood level

and currently floods at less than a 5-year frequency.

Elwha Ranger Station 12.0 The site is 2′ above the 100-year flood elevation, although

the well is probably below the 100-year flood level

Altaire campground 12.5 Partially flooded by annual floods; flooded by as much as

8′ during a 100-year flood.

Olympic Hot Springs (Elwha Valley) Road The road extends for 1 mile inside the park and 0.33 mile

outside the park, below the 100-year frequency flood

elevation.

Bridges 7.7 None affected by high-water levels or floating woody

debris during flood events.

SOURCE: USACE 1995a.
Alternatives

28

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action

Table 2 shows the mitigations proposed in the FEIS for structures in or near the river that would be

subject to flooding.

Table 2. Mitigations for Structures Subject to Flooding — FEIS Previously Proposed Action

LOCATION AND STRUCTURE RM MITIGATION

Locally constructed, privately owned levee 0.0-0.1 Raise levee 1′ and armor with 2′ of graded riprap.

EPHA wells and private residence 1.4 Raise wellheads and residence up to 3′.

City of Port Angeles Ranney well collector 2.8 Protect with levee (required).

Port Angeles industrial water supply channel 2.5–3.1 Raise 3,000′ of Crown Z Road by 5′ (immediately west of

facility) and add flap gate to entrance channel culvert.

WDFW fish-rearing facility 2.8–3.0 Raise Crown Z Road as above (required).

Water wells at fish-rearing facility 2.8 Raise wellheads 3′ to 4′.

West bank residences 3.5 Raise structures or floodproof.

East bank residence 3.5 Raise structure or floodproof.

East bank residences 8.4 Raise 2,000′ of the Elwha Valley Road (Olympic Hot

Springs Road) by 3.5′ and raise or floodproof three

houses.

River training dike 8.5 Raise dike 3′ and armor with riprap.

East bank residence 9.5 Raise structure or floodproof; armor channel bank with

riprap 15′ high and 3′ thick.

Elwha campground 11.0 Close campground during high flows or relocate if

suitable areas outside floodplain are available.

Elwha Ranger Station 12.0 Monitor / evaluate bank erosion threat and take corrective

action (e.g., bank stabilization, engineered logjam) as

needed.

Altaire campground- 12.5 Close campground during high flows or relocate if

suitable areas outside floodplain are available.

Elwha Valley (Olympic Hot Springs) Road – 4

miles long

Raise about 1 mile of low-elevation sections of the road

inside the park 1.5′; raise 0.33 mile of road outside the

park by 1.5′ to 2.5′. Riprap select sections of the road.

Bridges: U.S. Highway 101 7.7 Add debris deflectors to the in-water piers.

SOURCE: USACE 1995a.

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Recent re-analysis of the flood stage that would occur after removal of the dams has incorporated

information from a January 2002 moderate-sized flood, as well as additional topographical information

(such as pools and riffle controls, and split flows), to refine the predictions of both the impact of

continuing with no-action and of removing the dams (USACE 2003). In addition, flood control mitigation

has been completed for the Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association.
Flooding Mitigation

29

SEIS — Proposed Action

Actions proposed in this SEIS, in addition to those for the federal flood control levee, are presented in

Table 3.

Table 3. Mitigations for Structures Subject to Flooding — SEIS

LOCATION AND STRUCTURE RM MITIGATION

Locally constructed, privately owned levee (west

bank)

0.0-0.1 Raise and armor the levee (preferred alternative); realign

it along higher ground; or remove it and raise affected

homes.

EPHA wells and private residence 1.4 Mitigation completed.

City of Port Angeles Ranney well collector 2.8 Protect with levee. 

Port Angeles industrial water supply channel 2.5–3.1 Raise 4,850′ of the Crown Z Road by 4.5′ (immediately

west of facility) and add flap gate to entrance channel

culvert; raise wellheads at least 2.5′ to 2.8′; or possibly

construct a single levee to protect gate and wellheads.

WDFW fish-rearing facility 2.8–3.0 Raise the Crown Z Road as above.

Elwha water treatment plant 2.8 Raise the Crown Z Road as above. 

West bank residences 3.5 Ring dike; move on site, and elevate until first floor is

4.5′ higher. 

East bank residence 3.5 Move on site and elevate until first floor is 4.5′ higher.

DCWA well field and access road 3.7 If existing site maintained on the east side, raise ground

level, road grade, one well house, and two wellheads. If

alternative site developed on the west side, raise well

field area. 

East bank private well 7.9 Raise wellhead.

East bank residences 8.4 Move offsite (temporary structure); elevate in place and

use a ring dike; or move to higher ground on site.

River training dike 8.5 Raise dike 1.5′ and armor with riprap (not in USACE

2003 report).

East bank residence 9.5 Raise or floodproof residence; armor channel bank with

riprap 15′ high and 3′ thick.

Elwha campground 11.0 Take no active flood protection measures because use is

seasonal and outside flood periods; flood warnings are

provided and the Elwha subdistrict is closed during

floods; and the campground has minimal development.

Elwha Ranger Station (including structures, septic

system, roads, and utilities)

12.0 Monitor/evaluate bank erosion threat and take corrective

action (e.g., bank stabilization, engineered logjams) as

needed.

Altaire campground 12.5 Take no active flood protection measures because use is

seasonal and outside flood periods (campground closed

from late summer / early fall to late spring / early

summer); flood warnings are provided and the Elwha

subdistrict is closed during floods; and the campground

has minimal development.

Elwha Valley (Olympic Hot Springs) Road – 4

miles long

Raise about 1 mile of low-elevation sections of the road

in the park and 0.33 mile of road outside of park by 1′.

Riprap select sections of road. (USACE 2003 report

recommends monitoring to assess when or if a road

segment needs to be raised.) 

Bridges:

 U.S. Highway 101 

 Elwha Valley Road

7.7

12.1

Add debris deflectors to the in-water piers.

SOURCE: USACE 1995a and 2003.
Alternatives

30

Groundwater Mitigation

Dry Creek Water Association

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

The Dry Creek Water Association was incorporated in 1964 to serve the water needs of residents and

businesses to the south and west of Port Angeles. In 1994 the association included 392 connections: 349

residential and 43 commercial; by 2002 there were 450 connections. Water is provided through two

groundwater wells on the east bank of the river near RM 3.7. A third well is maintained for backup use.

Current pumpage from the two wells averages about 250 gallons per minute (gpm) or 403 acre-feet per

year. The no-action alternative over the planning horizon of dam removal in the FEIS would include

growth rates projected over the next several years. Based on the Dry Creek Water Association’s most

recent comprehensive water plan, usage by DCWA customers may increase to 664 acre-feet per year in

10 years, and to 818 acre-feet per year in 20 years. The Dry Creek Water Association currently has a 50-

year lease for the existing well field; the lease is due to expire in 2014 and is administered as an Indian

family trust property by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action

Hydraulic modeling indicated the river terrace on which the existing well field is located would be inundated by a 50-year flood. Aggradation of the riverbed in the area following dam removal would likely

result in inundation by a 25-year flood. In other words, the well field is likely to flood more frequently

after the dams have been removed. 

At least two of the wells in use by the Dry Creek Water Association are hydraulically connected to the

river, but they are not considered to be under the influence of surface water. Projected levels of suspended

sediment during and following dam removal, which could exceed 50,000 parts per million (ppm) for short

periods, could cause water in the DCWA wells to exceed water quality standards for turbidity. The

mobilization of manganese and iron in fine sediments in the reservoirs could also affect DCWA water

quality during and following dam removal.

The FEIS proposed two alternative solutions: either connect to the city’s proposed Ranney collector and

package treatment plant, or drill a new well farther from the river’s edge and modify one existing well to

provide less turbid water. A new chlorine station and filtration treatment system would be installed to

treat well water. The FEIS noted significant constraints in terms of land easements and physical space

with this latter alternative. Because the wells and the access road would both be flooded more frequently

following dam removal, the road grade, two well houses, and one exterior wellhead would have to be

raised to provide the same level of flood protection as is currently provided. 

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Although no changes other than growth expected under current trends have taken place since the release

of the FEIS, the Dry Creek Water Association’s 50-year lease for the existing well field has only 10 more

years (the association owns the wells and structures). The association is considering both renegotiating

the current lease and searching for a viable alternative site for their water supply wells. As described in

the FEIS, the association remains hesitant to connect with the city’s system, as this could eliminate their

autonomy. In addition, two older DCWA wells were determined to be under the influence of river water;

one has been plugged, and the other is used only for emergencies. Groundwater from the two newer wells

may not be subject to changes in Elwha River water quality.
Groundwater Mitigation

31

SEIS — Proposed Action 

A feasibility analysis of three options was conducted to maintain existing quantity and quality for DCWA

water users following dam removal (URS 2003a). 

1. Floodproof the Existing Well Field — This action would have a relatively low capital cost and

would be less likely to impact sensitive resources.

2. Find an Alternative Well Field — With only 10 more years for the existing lease, the

association has intensified its search for another well field. To date, the well field location most

closely examined is on the west bank of the Elwha River on property owned by the Green Crow

Partnership. The transmissivity of the aquifer is very high, and well yields should be more than

adequate to meet the demands of DCWA users (Bureau of Reclamation, pers. comm. Mar. 2002).

Additional testing of an existing unused well in the field indicated that, even though a hydraulic

connection to the river exists, there is sufficient natural filtration that it is considered separate for

water treatment purposes. The site lies within the 100-year floodplain of the Elwha River and

would be more frequently flooded as a result of river aggradation. Five alternative distribution

pipeline corridors are being considered from this site to DCWA users. All alternative routes

would involve at least moderately complex design challenges and would include bridge or river

crossings (URS 2003a). The “Dry Creek Water Association Alternatives” figure (page 32) shows

the various alignments. 

• Alternative Route A — About 2 miles of new pipeline and a river crossing on the Highway

112 bridge would be required. 

• Alternative Route B — The route A alignment would be modified. Instead of following

existing roads, the route would include a cross-country section and would follow an

overgrown access road to the Highway 112 bridge, where it would cross the river. 

• Alternative Route C — Under this option 6,000 feet of new pipeline would be laid along

Elwha River Road, then east across the one-lane bridge, and again follow the Elwha River

Road to the DCWA connection point at Laird Road. 

• Alternative Route D — Only about 1,800 feet of pipe would be laid, but the route would

require crossing under the river or in the riverbed. 

• Alternative Route E — This option would require 5,300 feet of new pipeline, crossing the

river by way of the new intake facilities. 

3. Connect to the City of Port Angeles Municipal Water System — This option would have

relatively low capital costs ranging from one half to one third of the alternative well field option

and with very low potential for impact to wetlands or endangered species. A connection to the

city system would require about 3,000 feet of waterline that would run along Airport Road. 

As noted above, some small changes to the DCWA system would be required to supply water to the four

homeowners in Elwha Heights subdivision (see the “Elwha Heights Water System Alternatives” figure,

page 33). At this time, negotiations are still underway with the Dry Creek Water Association, and no

preferred alternative has been selected.
32
33
Alternatives

34

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Wastewater Treatment

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative 

The Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation, tribal trust lands, and individual trust lands include about 1,262

acres near the mouth of the Elwha River. The reservation comprises two distinct areas: the Valley community along the river, and the Heights community above a steep escarpment that physically bounds the

valley. A total of 208 homes and other facilities generate wastewater, which is treated by individual septic

systems. A majority of the existing systems are either conventional septic systems or a modified version

of conventional septic systems. The depths for the drainfields range from 6 inches to 10 feet, depending

on the type of system used. About 60% of the tribe’s limited land base is dedicated to floodplain and open

space west of the lower Elwha flood control levee, along the coast of the Strait of Juan de Fuca for eagle

habitat, and on the Tower Addition along the bluffs for erosion control. There are over 100 families on the

Lower Elwha Housing Authority waiting list.

Growth has increased on the reservation, and the tribe is expecting this growth to continue at about 5%

per year (Ridolfi Inc. 2002). Given the limited land base, the shallow, unconfined aquifer, and growth

demands, the tribe has considered a community approach to wastewater treatment in the future, as it may

make economic and technical sense to treat water throughout the Valley community in a centralized

fashion rather than continuing to use individual septic systems. Because a community wastewater

treatment system may be built within 20 to 25 years regardless of whether the dams were removed, it is

considered a likely part of the no-action alternative. However, it is not analyzed in this SEIS as part of the

no-action alternative because there would be no federal connection to the building (the National Environmental Policy Act only applies to federal actions). One reason the tribe is considering centralized wastewater treatment is because rising groundwater levels after dam removal could make some low-lying septic

systems unusable or ineffective, resulting in contamination of groundwater and coastal shellfish habitat. 

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action

Hydraulic and sediment transport studies indicate that the groundwater is hydraulically connected to the

river and therefore is expected to rise in elevation as the river rises as a result of aggradation of the

riverbed. Piezometric monitoring of wells in the valley area from July through November 2001 indicated

that the average ratio of river level change to groundwater level change would range from 1:0.4 to 1:1

(Bureau of Reclamation 1995; USACE 1995b). This means that groundwater could eventually rise 2 to 5

feet on average in some areas in response to the rise in river level. 

The FEIS proposed modifying about 10 conventional septic systems to mound systems with lift stations.

This would elevate the drainfields for a few of the affected systems to a level above the groundwater.

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Since the FEIS was released, the agencies, the tribe, and contractors secured additional topographic and

groundwater information (Ridolfi Inc. 2002) and integrated it with existing Geographic Information

System (GIS) data. The new information from the tribe showed that the area of potential impact from

increases in groundwater elevation following dam removal would extend over a larger portion of the

reservation than estimated in the FEIS, but that the average potential increase would likely be only 2.5

feet. In addition, the reservation has experienced significant growth since the FEIS was published in 1996,

and similar growth is expected over the next 10 to 20 years. Up to 109 tribal septic systems, and an

additional 13 septic systems under Clallam County jurisdiction, or up to 100% of the existing valley
Groundwater Mitigation

35

systems, are now identified as being potentially ineffective because of rising groundwater following dam

removal. 

SEIS — Proposed Action

As noted above, many septic systems on the reservation could be rendered ineffective by rising groundwater associated with dam removal; therefore, federal funds from this project and other sources would be

expended to construct a community wastewater treatment system in the Valley community of the

reservation. Three alternative treatment and disposal alternatives were examined in detail: (1) a community drainfield, (2) community treatment by an on-reservation package plant (such as a membrane

bioreactor, with land disposal of treated effluent), and (3) a connection to the Port Angeles wastewater

treatment facility (Berryman & Henigar 2003). After analysis of the pros and cons of each alternative, the

tribe found the community drainfield to be inadequate for full build-out of the reservation, and the

community treatment option would have greater land base requirements and monthly cost to individual

homeowners than the Port Angeles connection. The tribal community held three meetings to share

information, discuss the alternatives, and to vote on their preferred alternative. A majority (57%) voted in

favor of a connection with Port Angeles. 

The onsite components for the Port Angeles connection would include a vacuum collection system and a

central lift station to pump the wastewater through 2.5 miles of conveyance pipeline to the nearest Port

Angeles sewerline for treatment. Two alternative pipeline routes are being evaluated (see the “Proposed

Wastewater Alignments” figure, page 36). The tribe has not yet selected a preferred alternative from these

two routes, and both are analyzed in this SEIS.

• Alternative A — The route would follow the Lower Elwha Road along the existing roadbed to the

intersection with the Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way, and then east along the railroad grade,

across Dry Creek, and to the 18th Street connection to the city’s sewer system. 

• Alternative B — The alternative B route would follow south along a new primary access route

from the reservation, then southeast near the southern terminus of Elwha Bluffs Road, then along

the railroad grade and across Dry Creek. It would continue in a more easterly direction along the

old railroad grade into Port Angeles at the point the grade crosses 18th Street, where it would

connect with the city’s sewer system. 

A manhole at the connection point to the city’s sewer and air scrubber units at both the pump station and

the discharge manhole would be installed. (Scrubbers are typically 85-gallon drums set on a concrete pad,

filled with filtering media and topped by a suction fan that pulls gases from belowground structures

through the filter media.) To avoid problems from combining sewer and stormwater overflow in Port

Angeles, wastewater during storm events would be stored at the tribe’s lift station or in the pipeline

between Dry Creek and the 18th Street connection. 

Meetings held from September 2002 through December 2003 with the City of Port Angeles, the Washington Office of Community Trade and Economic Development, and the Washington Department of Ecology

indicated a connection would benefit the tribal community, provide feasible mitigation for impacts of dam

removal, and would also be welcome because the city’s wastewater plant is currently underutilized. 

Mitigation for potential groundwater impacts to 13 non-tribal homes in the Valley community under

Clallam County jurisdiction could be provided either through onsite mound systems or by connecting to

the municipal sewer system by means of the tribe’s proposed wastewater lift station. Because of lower

residential density, mitigation for these homes would be evaluated on cost factors related to their distance

from the tribe’s collection system.
Alternatives

36

Proposed Wastewater Alignments
Fisheries Mitigation

37

Fisheries Mitigation

Fish Restoration Plan

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

Chinook Salmon. Chinook salmon are described by the season in which they enter their natal streams to

spawn. Spring chinook enter freshwater several months earlier than summer/fall chinook. Biologists believe that spring chinook entering the Elwha River before the dams were built spawned farther upstream

(upstream of RM 34 at Carlson Canyon Falls) than those entering in the summer or fall. The extant

chinook salmon population enters the lower 4.9 miles of the now-dammed river primarily from June

through September. Peak spawning occurs from September through mid October. Juveniles predominantly emigrate seaward their first spring as subyearling fish. A small proportion of the population

continues to rear in the river and emigrates the following spring as yearlings. All are likely to spend some

time in the estuary and nearshore shallows as they grow and adapt to saltwater. 

Elwha chinook salmon stock has been artificially propagated in the watershed since the early 1930s as a

means to mitigate the loss of juvenile and adult fish production due to dam construction. The stock is

currently reared and released from the state’s Elwha facility, which was constructed in 1974. The major

stock used in the hatchery program has been the Elwha River summer/fall chinook. NOAA Fisheries

included the Elwha hatchery stock as part of the threatened Puget Sound chinook salmon evolutionarily

significant unit (ESU) in its 1999 listing. The hatchery stock was included in the listing because it was

considered essential for recovery of the ESU. An annual average of approximately 1.82 million chinook

salmon fingerlings and 528,000 yearlings were released from 1988 through 1996. The current hatchery

program produces only subyearling chinook fingerlings, with an annual goal release of 3.85 million fish.

The program will be adjusted to produce 2.5 million subyearlings and 200,000 yearlings each year during

the dam removal phase as a measure to improve the likelihood of maintaining viable adult return

numbers. Chinook fingerlings were also released from the tribal fish hatchery, but that program was

discontinued in the early 1990s. Without dam removal, hatchery rearing of chinook would continue as

part of the no-action alternative.

In recent years (1990–2000), an annual average of 47% (range 18% to 70%) of the sub-adult and adult

chinook salmon population originating from the Elwha River are estimated to have been intercepted in

ocean fisheries. Another substantial portion die in marine waters before returning to the river because of

predation or other natural causes. Fishing pressure has been decreased on Elwha River chinook salmon in

U.S.-managed marine and freshwater areas in response to the listing of the population under the

Endangered Species Act. Harvest protection measures implemented by the state and the tribes are now

designed to limit the proportion of the total Elwha River chinook return for a particular year to less than

6% in southern U.S. fisheries.

Total annual spawning escapement (including hatchery volunteer escapement) averaged about 2,000 adult

fish between 1990 and 2002, ranging from 1,150 to 3,361 fish during this period. A substantial proportion

of the total number of adult chinook escaping into the river die prior to spawning during years when river

flows are low and water temperatures become high. Pre-spawning mortality has ranged up to 68% of the

population, due largely to parasitic infestations promoted by periodically high water temperatures. The

Elwha River chinook spawning escapement goal of 2,900 fish has not been achieved in the past 10 years.

The average number of spawners over the last five years has been 2,079, which is somewhat higher than

the average of 1,611 for the preceding five years (1993–1997). From 1986 through 2002, the total number

of adult chinook salmon surviving to spawn naturally in the Elwha River has ranged from 163 fish (1994)

to 5,228 fish (1988). During the same period, the number of adult fish collected as volunteers to the
Alternatives

38

hatchery or removed from natural spawning areas for use as hatchery broodstock has ranged from 663

fish (1995) to 2,595 fish (1988). 

Bull Trout. Bull trout occur in limited numbers in Washington State waters. Bull trout can be anadromous or live in freshwater their entire lives. Anadromous populations migrate from the sea upriver from

May to December, primarily in August and September. Spawning occurs in the fall, and fry emerge in

April to mid-May. Spawning requires cold, low-gradient tributary streams with loose gravel and cobble

having groundwater inflow. Anadromous bull trout migrate to sea at age three or four and spend only late

spring to early fall in the nearshore marine environment.

Information on the status and abundance of bull trout in the Elwha River basin is limited, but the presence

of upper and lower river subpopulations is considered possible because of the separation caused by the

dams. The lower Elwha subpopulation is likely primarily anadromous. The upper river population may be

resident in the river, or may migrate within the Elwha River basin to spawn. Three bull trout fry were

observed in 2003 below the Elwha Dam during snorkel surveys conducted by NOAA Fisheries and the

tribe (Pess, pers. comm. 2003).

Conditions in the lower Elwha River are unlikely to be suitable for spawning as the riverbed is composed

of large substrate. Although its status is unknown, the lower Elwha subpopulation is likely “depressed,”

according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g., a major life history form has been eliminated, or

abundance is half the historic population size, or less than 500 adults are present). It is unknown whether

the native char in the lower Elwha are bull trout, Dolly Varden (a closely related species), or both.

Through genetic testing, the subpopulation upstream of the Elwha Dam has been identified as bull trout.

Good habitat for bull trout exists upstream of Lake Mills and in both the Elwha mainstem and in a

number of tributaries. Based on field observations, the size of the subpopulation above the Elwha Dam

has been estimated at about 560 in the mainstem and 480 in the tributaries (Reisenbichler 1999). The

status of the subpopulation is unknown, but likely to be much healthier than that in the lower Elwha

River. These conditions would likely continue indefinitely under the no-action alternative.

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action

Chinook Salmon. The FEIS indicated that very few, if any, of the chinook salmon that may be considered part of a spring-run race remain in the Elwha River. Therefore, using the chinook salmon that now

return to the river to restore a spring chinook population is not likely. The restoration strategy for spring

chinook would be to collect eggs from the earliest adult spawners entering the river and to outplant the

juvenile (pre-smolts) progeny of these adults into the uppermost reaches of the basin. Because outplanting

would occur in the relatively inaccessible upper Elwha basin, helicopters would be used. After several

generations, this strategy might lead to the reestablishment of a spring component of the chinook salmon

population. 

The extant summer/fall chinook salmon population in the Elwha is a composite of naturally spawning fish

and fish produced in the hatchery. This composite population is considered the appropriate broodstock

source for restoring a viable, self-sustaining chinook salmon return to the river following dam removal

through the use of artificial propagation. The restoration strategy would involve collecting eggs across the

range of spawning chinook and outplanting juvenile chinook salmon at various sites within the river

basin, including upstream of the dam sites. In addition to releasing chinook salmon from the Elwha rearing channel, some fish would be held and fed in mid-river acclimation sites for up to two months and then

allowed to emigrate. To safeguard the stock during dam removal, the FEIS proposed moving production
Fisheries Mitigation

39

from the WDFW fish-rearing channel to the Solduc hatchery on the northern Washington coast for up to

three years.

Bull Trout. The FEIS indicated that natural recolonization of the Elwha River population would be

expected over time as access to the upper river was reestablished and salmon stocks restored. Remnant

landlocked populations in the river above the dams are expected to contribute to the recolonization of the

entire river.

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Since the release of the FEIS, both the bull trout and Puget Sound chinook salmon were federally listed as

threatened. This means formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries

and a biological opinion on how best to protect each species during and following dam removal are

required. 

SEIS — Proposed Action

Chinook Salmon. In consultation with NOAA Fisheries, the state of Washington and the Lower Elwha

Klallam Tribe (fishery co-managers) have created a list of measures aimed at protecting hatchery production of chinook during dam removal and at increasing the pace of restoration for Elwha chinook afterwards. These measures include additional clean water “windows” during the dam removal process,

keeping the state’s fish-rearing channel in the Elwha open during dam removal, using Morse Creek and

other facilities within the Dungeness/Solduc hatchery complex for additional hatchery production,

additional outplanting following dam removal, and monitoring and best management practices to

minimize the effects of flood control and water quality mitigation measures on chinook (and all fisheries).

Each of these is described in more detail below.

The FEIS indicated that dam removal activities resulting in sedimentation downstream would be stopped

during high spring runoff in May and June to help chinook (and steelhead) entering the river. This

suspension of activities would be extended under the SEIS to June 30 to allow chinook smolt to migrate

out of the river. A second period of closure from August 1 to September 14 for fall/winter chinook to

return to the river, and in particular to the WDFW fish-rearing channel, would also be added. 

As noted above, the FEIS proposed moving the WDFW rearing channel activities to another drainage

during dam removal to protect the chinook stock. This would mean the chinook reared during these three

years would return to the Solduc River, where they could mix with existing chinook stock in that river. To

keep the Elwha stock pure, and to keep production of the Elwha chinook high, the co-managers decided

that the rearing channel in the Elwha would remain open throughout dam removal. A clean water source

(as described above under “Industrial and Fishery Facilities,” beginning on page 13) would be required to

keep the rearing channel open. 

To further protect the stock, some hatchery production during dam removal might be shifted to Morse

Creek, a nearby creek that is not a tributary to the Elwha, but that empties into the Strait of Juan de Fuca

near Port Angeles. Adults returning to Morse Creek would be captured and used to produce additional

eggs and young fish for the restoration process. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife is

designing the rearing and acclimation facility at RM 5.5, near the Morse Creek hydroelectric project. This

temporary facility would raise 200,000 yearling chinook in four ponds from November through May. In

November water use at the ponds would be approximately 6 cfs, increasing to about 8.5 cfs in May as the

fish increased in size and were released on site. If required, a pollution abatement pond to ensure National
Alternatives

40

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System criteria were met could be added. Minimum flows would be

maintained in the bypass reach to protect fish life and water quality. Adults returning from the fish

releases could either be collected with a temporary fish trap in the stream or by netting.

Construction of the ponds and support facilities (storage shed, access) would take up to six weeks and

would involve as many as 10 truck trips per day. Up to three fish hauling trucks could be used to transfer

fish to the ponds or to haul returning adults to the ponds each season. The fish trap could be constructed

within a week each season of need, and it could be removed within days near the end of the adult return

season.

In addition to outplanting eggs or subyearlings, adult fish might be transported by helicopter above what

is now Lake Mills to increase the restoration of chinook in the Elwha River. The number of flights would

be restricted during the period when spotted owls or marbled murrelets are nesting.

The mitigation measures added to the SEIS to minimize the impacts of installing flood control structures

or protecting water quality include the use of best management practices to minimize erosion; release of

sediments; or the removal of trees, shrubs, coarse woody debris, and large woody debris. Road widening

would be kept to the minimum needed to provide access by heavy equipment. Instead of further widening

to maintain public access during the construction period, shuttle service through the road closure zone

could be provided.

Bull Trout. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has granted the agencies permission for “incidental take”

of bull trout as a result of dam removal. However, it has included a series of measures in its “Biological

Opinion” aimed at reducing the impact of that take (USFWS 2000; see appendix B). These measures fall

into four categories: (1) preparing a rescue and removal plan for individual bull trout; (2) transporting

rescued bull trout to clean water areas; (3) improving accessibility to Elwha River tributaries during and

following dam removal; and (4) monitoring effects on bull trout habitat from dam removal (from the

mouth of the river to the upstream end of Lake Mills). 

Bull trout collected from the river below the Glines Canyon Dam and above the Elwha Dam prior to dam

removal would be transported to the Elwha River above Lake Mills. Bull trout collected from the river

below the Elwha Dam would be genetically tested to determine their river of origin (i.e., the Elwha River,

the Dungeness River, or another stream). Elwha origin fish would be transported above Lake Mills, while

bull trout from other streams would be either transported to Dungeness Bay or Freshwater Bay. 

The National Park Service is required to replace or modify Hot Springs Road culverts that limit or block

access to tributaries that could be used by bull trout as a refuge during periods of high turbidity. Efforts to

remove eastern brook trout from these tributaries prior to culvert removal would be needed to prevent

hybridization with bull trout. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also required the monitoring of

sediment levels before and after dam removal for 10 years or until pre-dam levels of sediment were

restored, and periodic monitoring of suspended sediment and bedload levels after turbidity has stabilized.

If it is not stable after 10 years, the “Biological Opinion” calls for the use of sediment stabilization

techniques such as replanting to reduce upstream erosion.

Tribal Hatchery

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s fish hatchery is on the reservation near the mouth of the river. Coho

and steelhead are raised at the facility. In addition, the tribe has been conducting a chum salmon
Fisheries Mitigation

41

supplementation program, including the collection of eggs from adults for transport to the hatchery, where

they are fertilized and initially incubated. Eyed eggs are outplanted into side channels in the lower Elwha

River using remote site incubators, where the fish hatch, migrate into the surrounding gravels, and then

remain until yolk absorption is complete. Water for the facility is supplied by an infiltration gallery and

wells on the reservation.

FEIS — Proposed Action 

The tribal hatchery would continue to operate during dam removal and would be expanded before dam

removal was started. As previously noted, modifications include improvements to water supplies.

However, in addition, upgrades to incubation, as well as rearing and support capabilities, would also be

required. Innovative hatchery practices would be used to simulate natural rearing conditions and to

potentially improve survival in the wild. 

Aggradation and an increased surface water elevation near the tribal hatchery outflow could impact

hatchery operations. Under normal operations outflow from the hatchery is by way of Bosco Creek,

which is expected to aggrade during and following dam removal. Periodic dredging would be required to

keep this outlet open. During high flows, an outlet pipe flowing under the flood protection levee adjacent

to the hatchery bypasses Bosco Creek. Increased surface elevations could cause backflow from this

bypass into the hatchery.

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Since the release of the FEIS, modeling of sediment deposition following dam removal has been refined

using actual flood data and incorporating smaller scale topographical and river flow characteristics. These

data show that increases in groundwater and surface elevations of the river may be greater in some areas

than previously believed. The location of the hatchery is one of those sites.

The hatchery, if left in its current location, would be more difficult to operate because of the annual

impacts of flooding and sediment deposition. During periods of elevated groundwater, impacts to

hatchery operations would include the inability to recover adults to the hatchery and the volitional release

of juveniles from the hatchery. Ponds in this alternative would not be able to be fully drained and cleaned

during periods of moderate to high water in the Elwha River. Other impacts from elevated groundwater

levels include the potential to lift (float) pond bottoms, difficulties in repairing and maintaining buried

utilities, and reduced life of electrical cables, fuel tanks, and other items that are buried in saturated soils.

The current hatchery location would require a pump station to lift hatchery effluent over the levee when

flows in the river are high. This is estimated to occur four to five days per year on average. Additionally,

the pump station would need to be operated 50% of the time during the fish release period in April and

May to substantially drain the two lower rearing ponds. It is expected that no pumping would be required

some years and that several weeks of pumping could be required in other years. The pump station would

need to be virtually 100% reliable since failure could result in the flooding of the hatchery and

surrounding area and the loss of fish from the ponds.

SEIS — Proposed Action

Two options for the tribal hatchery are under consideration: (1) expanding the hatchery at the existing

site, or (2) moving it to a location at the Halberg property (RM 2.0–2.3). A hatchery at the Halberg

location could result in a facility that would have greater functionality and that would be simpler to use
Alternatives

42

and less frequently affected by high water events in the Elwha River. The facility would use gravity water

flow for the supply of all surface water, a shorter pipeline to deliver water from the Elwha water treatment

plant (in the short term) and the Elwha surface water intake (in the long term); no pumping of effluent

would be required. River levels and conditions would not adversely impact the ability of adult fish to

enter the facility or the volitional release of juveniles. Facility infrastructure would be new, would require

less long-term maintenance, and would not be adversely impacted by constant exposure to soils saturated

with groundwater. The agencies and the tribe have identified the Halberg location at a preferred location

for the hatchery.

Revegetation Plan

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

The revegetation plan in the FEIS is primarily concerned with the areas now inundated by the reservoirs.

The FEIS indicated that the reservoirs flooded more than 5 linear miles of riverine habitat or an estimated

534 acres of riparian vegetation, including 48 acres of wetlands and 122 acres of unvegetated wet river

channel and gravel bars. Both dams and reservoirs are federally owned. Without dam removal, the longterm ownership of these dams and reservoirs is unknown. However, neither dam has fish passage

facilities. 

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action

Two to three years prior to dam removal, park staff would begin empirical growing trials to identify

candidate revegetation species and to determine how well they would grow in lake silts. Park staff would

also begin seed and cone collection and the control and removal of nonnative invasive plants upstream of

the reservoirs. When the park received adequate restoration funding, it would begin large-scale plant

production, in part through non-NPS propagation sources. Sites identified for plant propagation include

Sweet’s Field. During dam removal and immediately afterwards, initial seeding and planting of remaining

sediments would begin as the reservoir was dewatered. Helicopters would be used to overseed inaccessible areas. Coarse woody debris might be relocated to promote recolonization of native species.

Biotechnical slope stabilization techniques might be used for sensitive or unstable areas. Intensive planting within habitat types would continue for four years following dam removal, as would the control of

invasive nonnative plants and monitoring.

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Park staff have conducted additional studies and calculations of the amount of material and effort needed

to adequately revegetate the site, and they have refined and updated some of the proposals. For instance,

the number of seeds and cuttings required may be higher than originally predicted, manual labor may be

inadequate given the scale of the plan, and animal grazing of planted material may be a larger problem

than the staff believed initially.

SEIS — Proposed Action

In addition to the actions identified above, the park anticipates a greater need for the use of mechanized

equipment on the ground and helicopters to complete the revegetation of the dewatered reservoir areas.

Either means could be used to collect cones and seeds; to carry large woody debris, duff, or litter from

borrow sites; to fertilize or apply soil amendments; or to transport plants or crews. Park staff would take
Wildlife — Trumpeter Swans

43

advantage of clearing associated with either new greenhouse construction or dam demolition to collect

cones. No trees would be cut in order only to collect cones. Seeds, cuttings, and cones would also only be

collected from inside park boundaries. The construction of a greenhouse would be analyzed in a separate

NEPA document, which would be completed with public input. Animal control, including fencing newly

planted material, might also be required. 

Removal of Dam Rubble

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative

Both dams would remain in place, so no rubble would be generated. 

FEIS — Previously Proposed Actions

Removal of both dams would generate more than 200,000 cubic yards of concrete, rock, and earth fill,

including 20,000 cubic yards of concrete from the Elwha Dam site and 15,000 cubic yards from the

Glines Canyon Dam site. Some of the material would be buried on site to backfill the spillway outlet

channel and penstock area at the Elwha Dam and to restore natural contours. Mechanical and electrical

items, timber, glass, fencing, and hazardous materials would be removed from the site for recycling,

salvage, disposal, or retention as historic artifacts. The remaining material, much of it concrete from the

Glines Canyon Dam, would be trucked to one or more of several surface mines or other open pit sites

evaluated in the FEIS. (An extensive traffic analysis of impacts to any of nine sites was included in the

FEIS.)

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

Concrete is now more expensive, and the option of finding a party interested in purchasing crushed

material for recycling is viable. 

SEIS — Proposed Action

The FEIS examined the option of crushing concrete removed from the Glines Canyon Dam on site and

transporting the material to be recycled. At the time, the cost was greater than transporting large blocks of

concrete and the option was rejected (see “Alternatives Considered but Rejected”). However, as noted

above, the economics have changed and recycling crushed concrete may make economic sense. It is also

environmentally preferable to recycle the material rather than dispose of it. Logistically, there is no room

to locate a crusher at the dam site, so concrete blocks would be transported to a privately owned crushing

facility in the region. The park and cooperating agencies have identified the crushing and/or recycling of

dam rubble as their preferred alternative.

Wildlife — Trumpeter Swans

Existing Conditions — No-Action Alternative 

Lake Aldwell is used during the winter by trumpeter swans, a species of local concern. The swans, which

also use some habitat in Lake Mills, have numbered up to 80. About 20 of them spend the entire winter in

the Elwha / Port Angeles / Sequim area. The FEIS estimated about 20 acres of foraging habitat at Lake

Aldwell and another 3 acres at Lake Mills. Population numbers in the region have remained relatively
Alternatives

44

stable or have recently increased. A slight increase in the use of reservoir habitat is possible over the 20-

year horizon of this EIS under the no-action alternative.

FEIS — Previously Proposed Action

Although the FEIS proposed options such as the acquisition of protective easements at other known

wintering sites and/or the monitoring of the local population of trumpeter swans, it did not select a

particular approach for mitigating impacts to them. 

Changes since the Release of the FEIS

No changes relating to trumpeter swans have occurred since the FEIS was released. 

SEIS — Proposed Action

The National Park Service has examined options for mitigating the impact to trumpeter swans and has

decided that the acquisition of property or conservation easements to protect swan habitat from future

development or use would be the best way to offset impacts. The Park Service is pursing the acquisition

of conservation easements at this time on appropriate property; however, to protect sensitive negotiations,

the exact location of the property is not revealed in this draft. 

Actions Considered but Rejected

Several options for water supply and water quality mitigation were analyzed before selecting the actions

analyzed in this SEIS. Some of those options are presented below. (For more information, visit the Elwha

River restoration website at <www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm>.) Some alternatives were eliminated

because they were not feasible economically or environmentally. Others were rejected because they had

the same or more environmental impacts, higher costs, or because they had no technical or other

advantage compared to the proposed action.

Water Intake Options

The “Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report” examined water intake options for

industrial supply, fisheries supply, and a backup for municipal supply (URS 2002c). The report concluded

that all subsurface supplies, such as from infiltration galleries, Ranney collectors, or vertical groundwater

wells, could be subject to blinding during periods of high turbidity. Alternate sources of water, such as

from the upper Elwha River, tributaries to the Elwha, or neighboring Morse Creek, were also examined. 

The report reanalyzed infiltration galleries, but based on limited bench scale testing results, they would be

very susceptible to blinding from river sediment. Also, frequent backwashing of the galleries would be

required to maintain them over time. Operation and maintenance costs would be higher because of these

issues, and careful monitoring of gallery performance and maintenance of the pump station would be

required. 

The water quality mitigation report also examined an on-land infiltration gallery, but found it would have

the same potential for reduction in yield from blinding of the aquifer.
Actions Considered but Rejected

45

Drilling a series of vertical groundwater wells or Ranney collectors to provide water was also examined

as a supply option for fisheries and industrial supplies. The feasibility study found that 40 to 50

groundwater wells located no closer than 300–400 feet apart along the shore of the river would be

required. The depth of the wells would be about 95 feet, and they would produce between 0.4 mgd and

1.5 mgd. This matched production rates in the report Lower Elwha River Groundwater Resource Evaluation (Bureau of Reclamation 2001). Spacing the wells would require between 2.5 and 4 miles of available

shoreline above the aquifer. Eight Ranney collectors would be required to supply existing needs, no closer

than 1,500 feet apart. Future industrial needs for which the city has a water right would require additional

Ranney collectors. The feasibility study concludes that there would not be enough river length in the

middle and lower basins for the number of wells required (URS 2002c). In addition, utilities, distribution,

and access needed to maintain the wells or Ranney collectors would require the acquisition of easements

from many different property owners. These difficulties, added to the problem of blinding, made the use

of groundwater wells or Ranney collectors infeasible.

Clean water sources during and following dam removal that were evaluated included the upper Elwha

River, Morse Creek, and a combination of Little River and Indian Creek. Water quality, supply, and water

rights were all investigated. The upper Elwha River was not a feasible choice because of water rights and

regulatory restrictions, as well as environmental impacts from using the water and installing a distribution

system. The upper Elwha is in a designated wilderness area, and laws and policies regulating use in the

wilderness prevent facility construction or the use of mechanized equipment. In addition, federal laws (PL

91-383 and PL 94-458) dictate that water in the park can only be used for public accommodations or

services “when there are no reasonable alternative water sources.” 

Water in Morse Creek is constrained because minimum flows are required by the Washington Department

of Ecology to ensure fish protection in the creek, so they are not available for withdrawal. Also, Morse

Creek does not have enough flow to provide for the water users that currently withdraw from the Elwha

River. The drainage area for Little River and Indian Creek would be inadequate to provide enough water

for industrial and fishery needs. 

Location of Intakes

Five locations for an intake facility were examined under contract to the Bureau of Reclamation (URS

2002a). Because of the potential for channel migration, two sites were eliminated. In addition, one of

these two sites would have required removing a substantial amount of material prior to construction, and

construction would have resulted in major adverse impacts on water quality, as well as interference with

the industrial water supply during construction. Conceptual layouts, costs, and technical and environmental factors for the three remaining sites were then evaluated and compared. 

The cost of an intake facility at site 1 would include 2,700 feet of 72-inch transmission piping and a river

crossing, as well as the purchase of land or easements. For these reasons, it would be substantially more

expensive than either of the other sites. 

One site was designed as a floating intake, which would provide environmental and water quality benefits

because no stream modification would be required, but it would be very difficult to maintain. Sediment

that was unable to pass through fish screens would have to be manually removed. In addition, the size of

the intake would have a major impact on flow conditions in the river at higher stages, and the intake and

protecting devices would be at risk of damage from boulders and floating debris. 

The remaining site (site 4) was found to be the lowest estimated cost option, primarily because it would

be very near the existing industrial intake and rock diversion structure, and because access already exists.
Alternatives

46

The primary problem with this site was the small amount of head between the intake and the proposed

Elwha water treatment plant. Although the team chose this site as its preferred option, additional modeling of sediment flow and fish passage indicated that the river’s morphology at this location is not ideal. In

fact, because of a downstream bend, sediment following dam removal would be more likely directed

toward the intake facility. In addition, the existing rock diversion structure and intake facility have caused

a downstream scour hole that would make creating fish passage for fish traveling upstream more difficult.

A site further upstream, about 225 feet from the existing diversion and intake facility, was chosen instead.

The proposed layout for the control weir and intake structure has the following advantages over the

previously selected site:

• a shorter weir length and height

• a rock foundation for the intake structure on the right bank

• a stable section of river for about 1,000 feet upstream from the existing rock diversion structure,

thus reducing the potential for channel migration (There is evidence that the primary channel in

the river through this section has been along the right side for over 60 years.)

• a uniform section of river for constructing the roughened channel downstream from the control

weir for fish passage

Water Treatment Options

Industrial and Fishery Uses

The “Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report” examined several alternatives

besides chemical coagulation and sedimentation to treat water for industrial and hatchery use (URS

2002c). These included treatment with membrane filters or disk filters, and storing clean water for use

during high turbidity periods. The two filtering options were rejected because of very high costs and the

potential for clogging and fouling during high turbidity events.

The storage option would have used the settling basins associated with industrial treatment to collect

water for storage in one or more reservoirs. A minimum of five days worth of water would have to be

stored in the reservoir(s), which means 45 acres of land would be required. The report examined a single

reservoir option, as well as individual storage facilities for the tribe, the state hatchery, Nippon Paper

Industries, and the City of Port Angeles. The option was rejected because of the required land area, and

because of concerns about the likelihood of algal blooms in the reservoirs and the colloidal nature of fine

sediments in the surface water. This means that treatment would still have been required. Since the scale

of treatment would remain the same as in the proposed action, no environmental or economic cost savings

would be realized with this alternative. Because it would offer no advantage, would have substantially

more environmental impacts, and would be costlier than the proposed set of mitigation measures, it was

dropped from further analysis.

Municipal Supply

The “Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report” examined several options for

treating the city’s municipal supply (URS 2002c). Normally the supply would come from the city’s

Ranney well and would be pumped to a separate treatment facility. However, during periods of high

turbidity, when surface supplies are used, water would be pretreated in the industrial/fisheries treatment

process before it was sent to the city for further treatment and disinfection. The options for treating the

city’s municipal supply included conventional treatment, direct filtration, micro filtration membranes,
Actions Considered but Rejected

47

high-rate treatment, diatomaceous earth filtration, and slow sand filters. As noted above, high-rate

treatment (the Actiflo process) was selected based on pilot testing. 

Conventional treatment was rejected because it would require a larger area and would be more expensive

than the high-rate treatment process. While feasible, it would offer no advantage compared to high-rate

treatment and would have greater environmental and monetary impacts. 

Neither direct filtration nor diatomaceous earth filtration would be appropriate alone, as untreated water

quality must be consistently high. Treatment by using membranes or diatomaceous earth were eliminated

because they are ineffective in removing dissolved constituents, such as iron and manganese, without the

addition of a costly pretreatment process. Slow sand filters would filter water more slowly than high-rate

or ordinary rapid sand filters, and so would require a large land area. They would offer no advantage to

high-rate treatment and would have more adverse environmental impacts.

A variety of disinfection and treatment residual options were also examined. Because of cost, safety risk,

and by-product formation, sodium hypochlorite was selected over the use of chlorine gas, ozone,

chloramines, or ultraviolet radiation to disinfect treated water. 

Disposal options for treatment plant sludge included river or ocean discharge and disposal in the city’s

sanitary sewer system. Discharge to either the ocean or to surface water would require extensive

permitting and possibly result in adverse environmental impacts. The addition of treatment residuals to

the city’s sanitary sewer system would be viable, but would require additional hydraulic capacity in the

sewer and treatment plant to accommodate the additional flow.

The water quality mitigation report also examined several locations for the proposed city water treatment

plant, including two sites owned by the City of Port Angeles, four sites owned by the Port of Port

Angeles, one owned by Rayonier, and five owned by private individuals. Using criteria such as access,

environmental impacts, compatibility with adjacent land use, availability of utilities, ease of disposal of

residuals, and other site characteristics, the agencies (including the city) prioritized the top six. The

staging area at the city’s landfill site was the preferred site, followed by a private site adjacent to the

landfill, then the four parcels belonging to the port.

Groundwater Changes

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Wastewater

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe examined many wastewater treatment options, including a constructed

wetland, lagoon treatment, and multiple mound systems before deciding that community level treatment

would be best. The tribe determined that 400 homes or their equivalent would require wastewater

treatment at full build-out on reservation lands. Data collected from 1998 to 2001 indicated flows of 190

gpd per structure or a requirement to treat 77,000 gpd on average.

The community drainfield approach would retain septic tanks at individual homes, but it would replace

individual drainfields with one large community drainfield in an area where groundwater would not

hamper its effectiveness. Although this would be technically possible, even flows of 30,000 gpd would

pose an unacceptable risk of potential failure (Berryman & Henigar 2003). The drainfield, which would

require nearly 10 acres, would also have the potential for adverse impacts to fish or shellfish, particularly

if it failed or partially failed.
Alternatives

48

The alternative for community treatment would use a membrane bioreactor and sequencing batch reactor

to treat wastewater. Treated effluent would be spread over onsite soils. This scenario would require

significantly less land (1.7 acres or less), and effluent could be reused. It would be more expensive than a

Port Angeles connection and would require more maintenance, but it would offer the tribe independence

in terms of rate hikes or system changes. Relative to the selected alternative of a Port Angeles connection,

the community treatment alternative scored lower for environmental protection, public health protection,

dependability as a proven technology, ability to support future development, and capital costs. The

protection of the environment and public health were weighted heavier than other factors. In the final

community review the monthly cost was estimated at $70 per month per home; this was the primary

deciding factor in choosing the pipeline to the city over the more independent community treatment

alternative. 

Tribal Fish Hatchery

The tribe conducted a site investigation to assess potential alternate locations for the tribal hatchery.

Among the alternatives considered was a facility at the present WDFW fish-rearing channel, which would

be owned by the tribe and jointly managed by the tribe and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. This

option was rejected by the state after extended consideration because a shared facility would not be in the

state’s interest, and such a facility could potentially prevent the state from carrying out its legal mandates

and responsibilities.

Other Mitigation Measures

Options for providing flood protection for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and for private residences near

the mouth of the Elwha River and now protected by a levee are examined in the SEIS. No options have

been rejected at this time. This is also true for the DCWA groundwater wells.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

The environmentally preferred alternative is the one that has the least impact on the human (i.e., physical

and natural) environment. In this case, the proposed action is the environmentally preferred alternative

because leaving the dams in place, as described for the no-action alternative, would have major, adverse,

long-term impacts on fisheries, vegetation, cultural resources, wildlife, and water quality. The dams have

resulted in water temperatures in the lower 4.9 miles of river that are 4°C–8°C warmer and less

oxygenated than water above the dams. The dams have prevented fish access to all but the lower 4.9 miles

of river, with a resulting decrease in numbers that is so significant that it will lead to the extinction of all

natural stocks of Elwha salmon and sea-run trout, and may have already led to extinction in some cases.

The reservoirs have also inundated 5 miles and over 500 acres of low elevation riparian and wetland

communities that would serve a variety of functions, including cycling of water, nutrients, sediment,

organic matter, and aquatic and terrestrial organisms in the riverine ecosystem. Wetlands and riparian

vegetation also reduce the severity of flood events, act as a buffer to pollution, and provide important fish

and other aquatic organism habitat. The proposed action is also preferred to other water quality, water

supply and flooding mitigation options for the reasons outlined above in “Actions Considered but

Rejected.” 
Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act, Sections 101 and 102

49

Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act, Sections

101 and 102

In any NPS environmental impact statement, the action alternatives are compared to the provisions in

sections 101 and 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act to provide additional clarity in choosing

among alternatives, particularly the environmentally preferred. Section 101(b) instructs federal agencies

to: 

• fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding

generations;

• assure for all visitors safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing

surroundings;

• attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or

safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

• preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain,

wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

• achieve a balance of population and resource use which would permit high standards of living

and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and

• enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of

depletable resources.

The proposed action would perform significantly better on each of these requirements, although the noaction alternative would continue to provide a renewable source of energy. However, the mitigation

measures described in the proposed action in this SEIS, which would be required to implement the

previously approved decision to remove the dams (see other sections of this SEIS describing what has

been approved), would also “enhance the quality of renewable resources” by restoring stocks of

anadromous fish native to the Elwha ecosystem, returning water quality to its natural state, restoring 5

miles and over 400 acres of riparian and wetland vegetation, restoring access to 70 miles of riverine

habitat, and restoring spawning and rearing habitat between and below the dams. 

The set of mitigation measures analyzed in this SEIS are the only ones considered reasonable, as

described above. Implementing them would provide water quality, water supply, and flood protection at

current levels, and would therefore be a sustainable practice as described above. Although visitors would

not be affected by mitigation measures described in this SEIS, the residents who live near the Elwha

River would be significantly benefited by their implementation, which would provide a “safe, healthful,

productive and aesthetically pleasing” environment by maintaining drinking water quality and quantity.

Best management practices described in appendix A would help in preserving important cultural and

natural resources. Conversely, implementing the no-action alternative would continue severe

unsustainable environmental and ecological damage to park resources as described above. 

NPS policy also directs that all environmental analysis documents address compliance with NEPA section

102(1). This section states that the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be

interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forward in the act. This document was

written in support of the NPS Organic Act, the Elwha Act, NPS Management Policies, and other policies

and legislation governing management of the national park system in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act.
Alternatives

50

Table 4. Summary Comparison of the Alternatives

FEATURE

EXISTING CONDITIONS — NO-ACTION

ALTERNATIVE

SEIS — PROPOSED ACTION

FOR MITIGATION

Water Supply

Industrial supply Diversion and intake facility. Construct new diversion and intake facility.

Tribal hatchery supply Infiltration gallery. Use industrial diversion and intake facility;

add new wells.

Chinook-rearing facility

supply

Industrial diversion and intake facility. Use industrial diversion and intake facility;

add new wells.

Backup municipal supply Not required / use existing Ranney well. Use industrial diversion / intake as backup.

Water Quality

Industrial supply Treatment at mill. Treat water from the Elwha water treatment

plant with coagulation, flocculation, and

sedimentation.

Tribal hatchery supply None required. Use water from the Elwha water treatment

plant.

Chinook-rearing facility

supply

None required. Use water from the Elwha water treatment

plant.

Municipal treatment Chlorination of Ranney supply. Treat water from the Elwha water treatment

plant with permanent high-rate Actiflo

treatment, dual media filtration, and disinfection when river turbidity was high

(during dam removal impact period); treat

water from the Ranney collector when river

turbidity was low.

Flooding

Federal levee Some repair from damage when a side channel

was reactivated. Seasonal backflooding around

north end of levee.

Raise levee average of 3.3′ and armor;

extend up to 450′ north to the beach berm

and 600′–1,600′ to the south.

Private residences, wells Differing degrees of flood protection now. Modify to maintain flood protection.

Private levee Protection from 25-year level floods. Extend and raise levee or raise homes.

Elwha Ranger Station Outside the current 100-year floodplain. Monitor / evaluate bank erosion threat and

take corrective action (e.g., bank stabilization, engineered logjams) as needed.

Altaire and Elwha

campgrounds

Occasional flooding largely following peak

seasonal visitor use.

Take no active flood protection measures

because use is seasonal and outside flood

periods; flood warnings are provided and

the Elwha subdistrict is closed during

floods; and the campgrounds have minimal

development.

Groundwater

DCWA supply Well field Either floodproof existing well field, drill

new well field, or connect to city’s supply. 

Tribal septic system Individual septic systems. Connect to the Port Angeles wastewater

treatment facility.

Fish Restoration

Chinook salmon WDFW rearing channel used and natural

spawning.

Keep rearing channel open; suspend dam

removal activity May–June 30 and Aug. 1–

Sept. 14 to enhance spawning; use Morse

Creek to supplement production; mitigate

to reduce erosion and vegetation removal.
Table 5. Summary of Impacts

51

FEATURE

EXISTING CONDITIONS — NO-ACTION

ALTERNATIVE

SEIS — PROPOSED ACTION

FOR MITIGATION

Bull trout No management actions Prepare a rescue and removal plan; identify

a temporary holding area for rescued trout;

improve accessibility to clean water

tributaries; monitor effects of dam removal

on Lake Mills population. 

Tribal hatchery location No mitigation required Provide flood protection, new outlet, or

move to upstream location.

Dam Rubble

Removal of dam rubble No action needed Remove blocks to concrete crushing

facility in region to offset costs; recycle

materials.

Wildlife — Trumpeter Swan

Trumpeter swan mitigation About 80 swans use some habitat at reservoirs

during some part of the year

Negotiate conservation easement(s) to

protect property currently used in winter by

trumpeter swans.

Table 5. Summary of Impacts

IMPACT TOPIC NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED ACTION FOR MITIGATION

Flooding

Flood protection Degradation of riverbed offers unnatural minor

benefit to some downstream residents. 

Flood impacts remain the same for all privately

owned structures and facilities, and for federal

flood protection levee. Some additional

impacts possible to two Olympic park

campgrounds and ranger station. 

Floodplains Less side channel habitat and restrictions in

floodplain; minor to moderate impact on

floodplain values.

Minor, long-term, adverse impacts to the

floodplain from additional flood protection

measures, particularly the federal levee.

Surface Water

Water quality and water supply

for users

Excellent quality; moderately reduced turbidity

and dissolved metals from reservoirs.

Water quality would remain excellent; guaranteed supply during and after dam removal.

Turbidity and dissolved metals

in river (aquatic organisms)

Moderately reduced turbidity and dissolved

metals from reservoirs; Morse Creek water

quality excellent.

Negligible to moderate, temporary impacts to

water quality (turbidity pulses) during construction using best management practices,

returning within a year to pre-construction

conditions (long-term, negligible impact).

Negligible to minor impacts on water quality

from returning treatment residual from the

Elwha water treatment plant and hatcheries to

the river. Negligible to minor impacts on water

quality from fish pond construction at Morse

Creek if best management practices used. 

Water temperature Elwha River below dams 4°C–8°C warmer

than under natural conditions; major adverse

impact of park water quality.

Major benefit from returning temperatures in

the Elwha River to the natural range, as

described in the FEIS.

Groundwater

Groundwater quality and yield

for users 

Somewhat lower turbidity and dissolved metal

concentrations than under natural conditions;

also some changes in yield and groundwater

tables from degradation.

Users protected from increased turbidity during

and following dam removal; and from

aggradation and increased groundwater levels

and its impact on septic systems.
Alternatives

52

IMPACT TOPIC NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED ACTION FOR MITIGATION

Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries

Anadromous and resident fish

habitat

Continuing major adverse impacts to

anadromous fisheries from degraded habitat,

blocked access.

Negligible to minor, adverse, short-term

increases in turbidity from construction of

mitigation facilities. Minor to moderate, longterm benefit from removing rock diversion

structure and replacing it with a passable weir.

Elwha water treatment plant

operation (effluent discharge)

No impact (no discharge). Negligible impact from releases, as they would

occur primarily during and following dam

removal.

Soils

Construction of mitigation

facilities

No impacts from mitigation facilities, although

reservoirs and dams have resulted in major

adverse impacts to soils from removal during

dam construction.

Long-term, minor, site-specific impacts from

erosion and loss of soil, assuming use of best

management practices.

Vegetation

DCWA water supply /

connection to Elwha Heights

Vegetation disturbed at current well field by

mowing.

Minor to moderate, local, long-term impacts

from floodproofing existing well field; minor

to moderate permanent impacts to forested wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplain wetlands

from use of alternative well field site. Negligible to minor impacts from pipeline construction and connection to Elwha Heights.

Removal/replacement of

diversion/intake structures

Riparian vegetation currently inundated by

pooled water at diversion structure.

Negligible to minor temporary impacts from

trampling; inundation would remain as it is

currently.

Elwha water treatment plant

construction

Industrial intake channel, roads, and facilities

have resulted in the removal of some riparian

vegetation.

Permanent, minor to moderate impacts from

loss of riparian forest; minor, temporary

impacts from staging. Negligible to moderate

impacts to wetlands directly or indirectly

affected by construction.

Federal levee modifications Levee has removed or buried riparian

vegetation along its length. Maintenance keeps

forest from growing on the levee banks.

Generally negligible to minor impacts to

riparian forest from strengthening, raising, and

extending the levee, although possible

moderate, permanent impacts from a southern

extension.

Tribal hatchery expansion Vegetation was removed to build the hatchery. Negligible to minor impacts to pasture and

orchard vegetation.

Port Angeles water treatment

plant construction

Disturbed forest with many crisscrossing roads

at proposed plant site.

Minor, adverse, permanent impacts to already

disturbed area.

Morse Creek ponds, fish

restoration in the Elwha

Upland vegetation relatively undisturbed at

Morse Creek; restoration for bull trout, including culverts, could remove some vegetation.

Negligible to minor impacts possible from

staging, construction of ponds, or outplanting

of fish (helicopter landing pads).

Revegetation of reservoir areas Continued major, adverse impacts to riparian,

wetland, and upland vegetation from dams and

reservoir inundation.

Negligible to minor impacts from use of heavy

equipment, helicopter landing pads, staging

and access roads to revegetate reservoir.

Wildlife

Actions related to the DCWA

well fields, pipelines, connection to Elwha Heights

Riparian habitat somewhat degraded or

changed; bird species in the area typical of

developed or urbanized areas; side channel

habitat for frogs and ducks.

Negligible to moderate, temporary impacts

from construction noise to mobile wildlife.

Moderate impacts possible to roosting bats.

Minor to moderate, permanent impacts

possible from the loss of side channel ponds.

Negligible impact from loss of wetland along

Elwha Heights pipeline.
Table 5. Summary of Impacts

53

IMPACT TOPIC NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED ACTION FOR MITIGATION

Removal/replacement of

diversion and intake facilities.

Riparian forest well used by recreationists; few

animals in the vicinity.

Minor noise impacts to the few species using

the site; moderate and temporary noise impacts

to wildlife in surrounding vegetation.

Elwha water treatment plant

construction 

Beaver, river otter observed; great blue heron,

pileated woodpecker, mergansers in wetland

areas west and east of the plant site; Pacific

chorus frogs observed; garter snakes,

northwestern salamanders likely.

Moderate, localized impacts within 1,500′ of

the construction site. Negligible to moderate

impacts as a result of wetland habitat loss, air

emissions, and/or turbidity related to construction. Minor, permanent impacts from general

habitat loss. 

Construction in the vicinity of

the federal levee and Halberg

property

Some deer browse and many birds feed at the

Halberg ranch orchards; gull and shorebirds at

northern end of levee; nesting hawk, quail

along levee, otherwise common passerines and

highly disturbed habitat.

Negligible to minor impacts from modification

of most of the levee. Moderate, temporary

impacts as a result of levee extension

southward. Minor impacts related to hatchery

construction possible. 

Port Angeles water treatment

plant construction 

Black-tailed deer observed; nesting red-tailed

hawk nearby; otherwise common passerine

species at disturbed and noisy site.

Minor temporary impacts from construction

noise; permanent impacts from the new

facility.

Fish restoration activities No fish restoration likely except possible

culvert replacement for bull trout; minor noise

impacts to wildlife.

Minor noise impacts to upland wildlife from

culvert installations on Elwha River and

construction of fish-holding/rearing ponds at

Morse Creek. Potential localized moderate

impacts from helicopter noise (outplanting of

fish). Additional minor to moderate impacts

from use of heavy equipment, helicopters, and

barriers for fish restoration. 

Species of Special Concern

Townsend's big-eared bats Riparian habitat already noisy and used by

recreationists; bats may already be disturbed.

Possible moderate impacts from construction,

blasting to nearby colonies if present (no

colonies have been located).

Bald eagles Nests along the coast; no known nesting along

the river study area.

Possible minor to moderate, temporary impacts

to wintering eagles in construction areas; also

possible moderate impacts to nesting eagles at

river mouth and along coast near river mouth

from levee extension.

Northern spotted owls Nesting in old-growth forest near the river, but

no known nest sites or habitat in the impact

study area.

Possible minor to moderate temporary impacts

from the use of helicopters to outplant fish in

the upper drainage or to revegetate the

reservoirs.

Marbled murrelets The river valley used as a flyway to access

food at the coast and nests in the upper

drainage.

Possible minor to moderate impacts if construction noise caused murrelets to avoid the

river valley flyway in certain spots.

Harlequin ducks No known nesting in the project area, but

ducks winter near the mouth of the river.

Possible minor impacts to wintering ducks

from the construction of the northward

extension of the federal levee.

Pileated woodpecker Two individuals observed in the project

vicinity, one at the Elwha water treatment plant

site, and one in the forest south of the Halberg

property.

Minor to moderate impacts from construction

noise at least in the areas where this species

was observed, and likely in other locations

where habitat is available.

Northern red-legged frogs and

tailed frogs

Individuals observed in wetlands near the

DCWA well field; additional habitat exists at

the Elwha water treatment plant site.

Possible minor to moderate impacts from

filling / modification of wetlands.

Western toad Observed in the forested portion of the Elwha

water treatment plant; likely to occur in

riparian forest throughout the study area.

Minor to moderate impacts from trampling, use

of heavy equipment in riparian areas.

Chinook salmon, Pacific and

brook lampreys 

Major, adverse impacts from dams,

degradation of habitat.

Possible minor impacts from turbidity during

construction.
Alternatives

54

IMPACT TOPIC NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED ACTION FOR MITIGATION

Bull trout Major, adverse impacts from dams, habitat

degradation.

Possible moderate, temporary impacts from

turbidity during construction.

Air Quality

Dam rubble disposal (concrete

crushing)

No impacts (no rubble disposal). Continued

high air quality for study area.

Temporary, negligible to minor impacts within

permitted levels.

Vehicular emissions from

construction equipment

No impacts (no construction). Continued high

air quality for study area.

Negligible impact compared to stationary

sources or dam removal; possible minor to

moderate impact on nearby residents, staff at

rearing channel, construction workers.

Noise

Construction No impacts (no construction activities

proposed).

Minor, primarily site-specific, short-term

impacts for a few residents near construction

sites. Possible moderate to major, short-term

impacts for residents near the northern end of

the levee.

Concrete crushing No impacts (no crushing proposed). Noise levels within permitted Clallam County

limits; no adverse impacts.

Operation of the Elwha and

Port Angeles water treatment

plants

No impacts (plants not constructed). Negligible to minor effects on workers.

Cultural Resources

Construction Continued major adverse impacts to tribal

cultural resources from dams and reservoirs.

With adherence to the programmatic agreement, no more than minor, site-specific

impacts.

Socioeconomic Environment

Project costs and benefits No project would take place. Benefit:cost ratio would be slightly less than

2:1 (total benefits = $355 million, total cost =

$182.5 million).

County economic base Regional economic difficulties exacerbated by

decreases in commercial fishing, timber sector.

Moderate to major, long-term benefits for local

economy from $67 million to $73 million in

business activity; $36 million to $38 million in

personal income; 1,150–1,240 jobs generated

by dam removal and river restoration projects.

Ediz Hook maintenance Increased maintenance cost of Ediz Hook

(about $100,000 per year) from dams.

Dam removal would decrease maintenance

costs by about $31,000 annually.

Infrastructure, service and

utilities

County does not collect taxes on the dams now. Same as the no-action alternative.

Fisheries and fish processing Continued $840,000 in business benefits from

fishing sectors.

Economic benefit over 100 years = $36.7

million; corresponding economic benefit to

sportfishing = $10.3 million.

Recreation and tourism in

Clallam County

Travel/tourism expenditures (1993) = $116.9

million; related payroll income = $21.3 million

(approximately 2,000 jobs).

Addition of an estimated 507,084 recreation

trips, generating about $57.1 million annually

in additional expenditures by visitors.

Public Health and Safety

Safety of workers during

construction

No impacts (no construction proposed). Negligible to minor impacts with OSHA

regulations.

Use of hazardous materials

(plant operations/construction)

No impacts (no water treatment plants

proposed).

Negligible to minor impacts to workers /

public with standardized containment and

clean-up procedures.
55

Affected Environment

Fluvial Processes and Sediment Transport

Even though no changes to fluvial processes or sediment transport are expected as a result of implementing the mitigation facilities in the proposed action, the dynamics of these processes are important to

understanding impacts to water quality and fisheries. For more information on any of the topics analyzed

in this SEIS, the reader should refer to the 1996 FEIS.

Sediments in the Elwha River drainage basin are dominated by glacial deposits and recent alluvium.

Sediments range in size from clay to boulders. River alluvium typically consists of sand, gravel, cobbles,

and boulders. Considerable amounts of recent alluvium are stored along the river channel, particularly in

the wide terraces outside the floodplain and at the river mouth.

The Elwha River has a steep slope. It is steepest at the headwaters (16% average gradient) and generally

decreases in slope farther downstream. The river flows through several steep, narrow, bedrock canyons.

Between these canyons, the channel is less steep and has wider reaches within its broad floodplains. At

the outlet of the canyons, deltas are created where the channel widens, the streamflow slows, and sand,

gravel, cobbles, and large woody debris are left behind by the slower-flowing river. In the floodplain the

river typically meanders, in some cases undercutting alluvial terrace and valley wall deposits. 

The Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams have blocked sediment flow downstream. 

• The Glines Canyon Dam has trapped an estimated 13.8 million cubic yards of sediment; it has

also created the Lake Mills delta, which inundated a 2.5-mile stretch of the river. The upstream

portion of the delta in Rica Canyon and in the Cat and Boulder Creek fans consists of approximately 1.55 million cubic yards of mostly coarse (i.e., sand-sized and larger) material. The main

delta contains 6.97 million cubic yards, which is 70 feet thick in some places. Downstream of the

delta, Lake Mills contains 6.6 million cubic yards of fine lake sediments composed primarily of

silt and clay, with minor amounts of sand. This material is spread fairly evenly across the

lakebed. It is an estimated 12-feet thick along the center of the reservoir and thins toward the

edges. Most of the sediment is composed of silt-sized particles. The clay-size particles have little

cohesion and lack many common properties of clay.

• The Elwha Dam has trapped approximately 3.88 million cubic yards of sediment in Lake Aldwell

and its delta, which has inundated 2.8 miles of the Elwha River. The reservoir area consists of

two wide alluvial reaches divided by a canyon. The delta contains an estimated 1.78 million cubic

yards, as much as 40 feet thick, composed of sand and gravel with smaller amounts of clay, silt,

cobbles, and boulders. Downstream of this delta, the reservoir contains 2.1 million cubic yards of

fine-grained sediments, with minor amounts of sand. This material is 5–6 feet thick in the

southern basin, thinning to less than 1 foot in the narrow canyon section. 

From the Elwha Dam downstream to RM 4, the river is constrained by steep bedrock walls of Elwha

Canyon. Below Elwha Canyon the stream gradient is less steep and the channel floodway widens to

approximately 1,500 feet. Farther downstream are DCWA wells at RM 3.7, the City of Port Angeles

diversion and industrial surface water intake (RM 3.5), the Ranney collector adjacent to the channel for

municipal water (RM 2.8), and the WDFW fish-rearing channel (RM 2.8–3.0). At RM 2.8 the river

channel narrows where it is constrained by bedrock on the right bank.
Affected Environment

56

Between RM 2.8 and the river mouth, the floodplain widens and is bound on the west side by steep cliffs

of glacial deposits more than 150 feet high. The pre-dam river migrated throughout the entire floodplain;

nearer the mouth, it moved laterally over an area 1.2 miles wide. The erosive action of the meandering

river prevented the establishment of a mature evergreen forest. But dam construction has caused the

channel to shift less frequently and dense, woody vegetation has grown near the mouth, increasingly

constraining the river in the lower reach. The 1.5-mile-long lower Elwha federal flood control levee on

the east side of the floodplain constrains the eastward migration of the river. A 900-foot-long privately

owned levee downstream from the high river bluffs on the west side of the river also restricts the

floodplain near the river mouth.

At the mouth of the river an extensive delta roughly 5 miles wide, 6 miles long, and an estimated 200 feet

thick has formed. It is composed of sand, gravel, and cobbles, and samples indicate a sand and gravel

surface to approximately 2,000 feet offshore (USACE 1971). Because the dams have blocked much of the

natural sediment transport, the only current source of delta sediment is from the erosion of loose material

(alluvium) from the bluffs along the west side of the river in the 4.9 miles upstream from the mouth. As a

result, sediment yields to the delta have dropped from a pre-dam total sediment supply of 280,000 cubic

yards per year to 5,900 cubic yards per year, approximately 2% of the pre-dam volume (FERC 1993).

Sediment from the Elwha delta moves with the currents in the strait, predominantly in an eastward

direction along the coast. The sediment nourishes beaches and nearshore areas with sand and gravel, and

supplies some of the sediment to Ediz Hook, which forms the bayward side of Port Angeles Harbor

(FERC 1993). The drastic reduction in bedload sediment supply from the river has caused 75–150 feet of

beach erosion along the western edge of Ediz Hook (FERC 1993).

Flooding

The floodplain between the dams (from Glines Canyon Dam to the U.S. Highway 101 bridge at the head

of Lake Aldwell) can be characterized as a largely undeveloped, relatively narrow floodplain confined by

steep, forested valley side slopes. The river gradient in these sections averages 40 feet per mile, and the

river flows swiftly. There is no development within the 100-year floodplain on the west side of the river

between the dams, but five residential properties (four near RM 8.4, one near RM 9.7) lie within the

floodplain on the east side of the river. Four of these residences are vulnerable to 5- to 25-year floods, and

the fifth residence was recently constructed on a raised metal platform. Portions of the Olympic Hot

Springs Road (Elwha Valley Road), paralleling the east side of the river channel, and the Elwha and

Altaire campgrounds in Olympic National Park also lie within the 100-year floodplain. The Elwha Ranger

Station facilities near RM 12.1 are just 1 foot above the 100-year floodplain. In addition to their location

in the floodplain, both Hot Springs Road and the Elwha Ranger Station are vulnerable to loss through

bank erosion following dam removal. Monitoring to determine whether bank erosion is occurring would

take place during dam removal, and bank protection in the form of large angular rock, engineered log

jams, or a combination of the two would be applied as needed to stabilize the bank. 

The area from the Elwha Dam to RM 4 is forested and relatively undeveloped. In the broad floodplain

between the old Highway 112 bridge (at RM 3.3) and RM 4, two residential properties on the west side of

the river and one on the east side are flooded every 10 to 30 years on average; these residences lie

approximately 3 feet below the current 100-year flood elevation. The DCWA wells and wellhead access

road on the east side of the river are also within the 100-year floodplain.

Compared to the middle reach of the river, the floodplain along the lowest 3 miles broadens significantly

and has a much lower gradient (approximately 15 feet per mile). Development in this portion of the 100-
Flooding

57

year floodplain includes the state fish-rearing facility, the Port Angeles domestic water supply system, the

federal flood control levee on the east side of the river, and residences on the west side near the river

mouth. 

Levees

The 7,100-foot-long federal Elwha flood control levee was constructed in 1988 by the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers in the lower 1.5-mile floodplain on the east side of the river. Approximately 300 acres of

Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation lands between the levee and the river are dedicated to flood abatement.

The levee, designed and constructed to withstand a 200-year flood, was built to protect structures in the

700-acre floodplain, including 305 acres east of the levee on Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation and

private property. Annual operation and maintenance of the levee is the responsibility of the tribe, the local

sponsor of the project. However, under the current agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers, any

levee damage or imminent threats of outflanking may be addressed as a mitigation measure by the Corps

or a subcontractor. Structures within the floodplain now protected by this levee include approximately 60

houses, a community tribal center, two churches, a Head Start facility, a dental clinic, a tribal fish

hatchery, and agricultural lands. 

Approximately 30 acres of residential development on the west side of the river are protected against

lower frequency (25- to 50-year) floods by a privately owned and maintained levee. This 900-foot-long

levee extends downstream to near the mouth of the river from the high natural bluff line, preventing the

river from migrating to the west beyond the shore zone. Flooding at the mouth of the river is also

influenced by tidal conditions.

Flooding Frequency

The Elwha River typically experiences two periods of high runoff — November through March runoff

from rainfall, and May through June from spring snowmelt. Annual peak discharges have ranged from

4,680 cfs in 1936 to 41,600 cfs in 1897. The largest recent discharges were 25,900 cfs on October 17,

2003, and 25,000 cfs on October 21, 2003 (provisional data from USGS). Typically, flood discharges rise

sharply (usually less than 24 hours to the peak) and gradually recede over two days or more. It is not

uncommon for two or more periods of high flows to follow one another in swift succession, such as

occurred on October 16 and 20, 2003 (25,370 cfs and 24,650 cfs, respectively).

Statistics compiled since 1924 show that the flood stage in the Elwha and the neighboring Dungeness and

Hoh Rivers is increasing over time. For example the predicted peak flow for 2002 is nearly double that

predicted for 1924 (Crain, pers. comm. 2003). Some of this trend may be related to logging and other land

clearing activities (primarily in the neighboring drainages), but it appears climate is having a major effect

as well.

Both the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams are operated in a “run-of-the-river” mode, in which the reservoir level is held constant and very little of the water entering the drainage is stored or released differently

from the way it was before the dams were built. This is done to maximize power production, and not

much storage for flood control is available in the reservoirs without stopping power production altogether.

Consequently, the dams provide minimal flood protection and only during short-duration storms or

snowmelt.

Since the dams were built, relatively little bedload entered the river downstream of the dams, allowing the

riverbed to degrade (become lower at some locations), which has reduced the flood hazard from pre-dam
Affected Environment

58

conditions to some properties along the lower river. Many homes, wells, and cultural resources within the

100-year floodplain will be more susceptible to flooding after the removal of the dams.

Surface Water

Elwha River

Discharge

Annual precipitation in the Elwha River basin ranges from 220 inches in its upper reaches to 35 inches

near its mouth. Average annual discharge is approximately 1,500 cfs at the McDonald Bridge stream gage

and 1,650 cfs (about 10% higher) at the river mouth. Discharge is influenced by winter storms and spring

snowmelt and by baseflow conditions during the summer and fall. The lowest flow period is during late

summer and fall, when discharges average from 618 cfs to 952 cfs. Flow regimes of the river and its

tributaries are nearly natural because the dams are operated in run-of-the-river mode. 

Water Rights

Of the 206 cfs of state-issued water rights on the Elwha River, the City of Port Angeles holds 200 cfs — a

50 cfs groundwater right for municipal purposes at the Ranney collector at RM 3.0, and a 150 cfs surface

water right for the industrial intake channel at RM 3.5. The surface diversion currently provides water to

two users — the NPI paper and pulp mill and the WDFW fish-rearing channel. Private landowners, the

Dry Creek Water Association (5.58 cfs), and the Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association (0.4 cfs) also

hold groundwater rights. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the tribal fish hatchery withdraw

approximately 10 cfs. The United States holds additional unquantified water rights in trust for the tribe;

these rights are not issued by or registered with the state. They guarantee sufficient water to support treaty

fisheries and the purposes of the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation.

Water Quality

The Elwha River and its tributaries are classified by the Washington Department of Ecology as a “salmon

and trout spawning, core rearing, and migration” area, signifying “extraordinary” quality. Overall, the

Elwha has relatively low concentrations of dissolved and suspended sediment loads, nutrients, and

organics (see Table 6). Changes in water quality occur in the lower part of the watershed, mostly as a

result of reduced sediment load and elevated water temperatures during the summer. Suspended sediment

concentrations and turbidity of the lower river are related to the reservoir’s trapping efficiency, flood

flows, logging, agricultural practices, and bank erosion. Values for pH and alkalinity indicate neutral to

slightly alkaline conditions typical of oligotrophic (low biological productivity) waters (Wetzel 1975).

Dissolved oxygen values are very close to saturation at all times of the year; these are excellent conditions

for cold-water fish (EPA 1976). Most water quality parameters vary little with time except for turbidity

and suspended sediments, which increase during high discharge periods.

The City of Port Angeles Ranney collector, a large diameter caisson near the river’s edge with laterally

radiating perforated collection pipes beneath the riverbed, has the capacity to pump approximately 17 cfs.

Generally, Ranney collector water is lower in turbidity than river water because alluvial sands and gravels

filter out a large portion of the particulate matter. The 1994 measured mean turbidity of 0.08 NTU

(nephelometric turbidity units — a measure of how much light is scattered by particles in the water) is

below the drinking water standard of 1.0 NTU. However, the maximum turbidity detected in the city’s

well from 1983 to 1993 was 4.8 NTUs, well above the drinking water standard. Mean iron concentrations
Surface Water

59

are lower than state drinking water standards, although maximum concentrations are not. Only two

constituents, iron and turbidity, were detected above maximum contaminant levels in the Port Angeles

Ranney well samples taken from 1983 to 1993.

In April 2000 the Washington Department of Health informed the city that water obtained from the

Ranney collector had been designated as “GWI” or “groundwater under the influence of surface water.”

This change is unrelated to proposed dam removal activities; it means the city must now treat its water to

surface water treatment standards, including the removal or inactivation of viruses and Giardia cysts. This

can be accomplished by appropriate filtration and disinfection, or by reconstructing the Ranney collector

to eliminate surface water influence, if possible (URS 2002c). As noted in the “Alternatives” chapter, the

city has agreed to build a water treatment facility near its existing landfill site, and to have surface water

pre-treated at the Elwha water treatment plant sent to the Port Angeles plant as a back-up supply during

dam removal. Because water collected in the Ranney well is no longer considered groundwater, the

impacts of providing a source of treated water to the city’s municipal customers is discussed under

“Surface Water” in this SEIS.

Morse Creek

The Morse Creek watershed includes four subwatershed areas, including an extensive highland area that

lies within old-growth forest inside Olympic National Park (DeMond, pers. comm. Sept. 2002). The

headwaters of Morse Creek lie in a subalpine environment above 6,000 feet in the southern mountains of

the park. The southernmost divide of the watershed is defined by Hurricane Ridge. 

In the lowland subwatershed, the mainstem of the creek lies within a heavily wooded, ravine-like valley

outside the park. Vegetation here has been altered through extensive logging, clear-cutting, and land

clearing for development and agricultural purposes. The drainage network in this area is poorly

integrated, so impacts from these activities have remained localized rather than affecting the entire

mainstem of Morse Creek. Rain at this elevation and snow at higher elevations contribute to runoff in the

watershed. Chinook-rearing ponds are planned for development in this part of the watershed,

approximately 5.5 miles upstream from the mouth of the creek.

Streamflow in the Morse Creek watershed is highest during winter and spring, and lowest during late

summer and into fall. The Washington State Department of Ecology rates Morse Creek water quality as a

“salmon and trout spawning, core rearing, and migration” area, or extraordinary water quality. 

Table 6. Elwha River Water Quality Impact Indicators

IMPACT INDICATOR CURRENT CONDITIONS

Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation) 95–110

Total Suspended Solids (fines) (mg/L) 1–1,500

Turbidity (NTU) 1–2,800+

Total Iron (μg/L) 20–2,300

Total Manganese (μg/L) 4–210

pH 6.7–10

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 0–10

SOURCE: USGS water quality data and NPI.
Affected Environment

60

Groundwater

An alluvial sand and gravel groundwater aquifer, which supplies municipal water for local residents and

businesses, underlies the Elwha River valley (Bureau of Reclamation 1995). Five major purveyors

withdraw groundwater from the alluvial aquifer: the City of Port Angeles (although as noted above, this

source is now considered to be hydraulically connected to surface water to such an extent that it has been

redesignated as under the influence of surface water and must be treated as if it were a surface water

source), the Dry Creek Water Association, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the tribal fish hatchery, and

the Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association (EPHA). 

Alluvial Aquifer Characteristics (Lower Elwha River)

Above Elwha Dam the alluvial aquifer is restricted to the river channel and the narrow floodplain within

the valley; it is bounded primarily by bedrock. The alluvium thickens and laterally extends into the lower

Indian Creek valley.

Below Elwha Dam the river valley is divided into three distinct alluvium-filled groundwater subbasins

separated by bedrock outcrops or constrictions in the surrounding glacial deposits. 

• The upper subbasin (RM 4.0–3.1) is where the river emerges from the narrow, bedrock-walled

Elwha Canyon. The alluvium in the 60-acre upper subbasin is estimated to be as much as 75 feet

thick. The DCWA wells are located in the upper subbasin.

• The middle groundwater subbasin (between RM 3.1 and 2.8) is approximately 70 acres and

includes the Port Angeles Ranney collector and the WDFW rearing channel wells. Drilling in the

middle subbasin showed alluvium thicknesses of 55 feet.

• The lower subbasin (RM 2.8 to the river mouth) is approximately 1,100 acres and includes the

EPHA wells and the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation. Drilling in the lower subbasin showed

the alluvium was 125 feet thick.

The transmissivity of the aquifer increases from upstream to downstream. In the upper subbasin, the

transmissivity is estimated to be 75,000 gallons per day per foot of aquifer; in the middle, 100,000; and,

in the lower, up to 400,000.

The alluvial aquifer and the river are hydraulically connected, and both surface and groundwater flow

north toward the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Groundwater flows through the aquifer from the upper to the

lower subbasin. The discharge from the middle to the lower subbasin is approximately 1–2 cfs. In the

lower subbasin, the river loses water to the aquifer; the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the discharge at

between 3 and 12 cfs from the alluvial aquifer to the strait (URS 2001). 

Groundwater Levels

Lake Aldwell supports an artificially high groundwater level at the east end of the Indian Creek valley,

near the confluence of Indian Creek and the Elwha River, which allows at least one well in this area to

access groundwater at a shallower depth. Also, residents of the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation Valley

community have been able to install septic systems because groundwater levels are lower now than before

the dam was built. This is due to the riverbed degrading without a continued supply of sand and gravel,

consequently dropping the river’s surface elevation.
Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries

61

Groundwater Use

Total use by the five major groundwater purveyors in the Elwha River valley is approximately 22.3 cfs. In

the upper subbasin the Dry Creek Water Association holds a groundwater right for 5.58 cfs, and average

use is approximately 0.56 cfs (250 gallons per minute [gpm]). The association wells are at approximately

RM 3.7. Because of their proximity to the river channel, turbidity in the river increases turbidity in the

two oldest (hand dug) wells. One of these wells has been removed, and the other is reserved for

emergency use.

In the middle subbasin the City of Port Angeles holds a groundwater right for 50 cfs. As noted above,

because water collected in the Ranney well is no longer considered groundwater, the impacts of providing

a source of treated water to the city’s municipal customers is discussed under “Surface Water” in this

SEIS.

In the lower subbasin the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe community water system and the tribal fish

hatchery together withdraw a total of approximately 10 cfs from both wells and a shallow infiltration

gallery. The Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association holds a groundwater right for 0.4 cfs and uses

approximately 0.1 cfs. The EPHA wells are at approximately RM 1.4; their water supply does not become

turbid when the river does. Other groundwater withdrawals from domestic wells total less than 0.2 cfs.

Groundwater Quality

The groundwater in the Elwha River watershed is of excellent quality, and the entire headwater area

within Olympic National Park is protected. Watershed land use is primarily rural, but non-point source

pollution from agricultural and other uses has a minor influence on groundwater quality. Low chloride

levels (less than 1 mg/L to 8 mg/L) detected in wells near the mouth indicate that saltwater intrusion has

not occurred. Private septic systems in the lower basin present a potential for groundwater contamination

because of the poor filtering capability of the coarse-grained alluvial soils and the high water table.

Groundwater withdrawals by the Dry Creek Water Association and the Elwha Place Homeowners’

Association are periodically tested for several contaminants, as required by the Washington State Department of Health. Well water that was tested for turbidity, coliform bacteria, inorganic chemicals,

trihalomethane, volatile organic chemicals, and pesticides was found to be of very high quality. Volatile

organic chemicals were not detected in any samples. Inorganic maximum contaminant levels were not exceeded in any sample taken from the DCWA wells (2003-04) or the EPHA wells (1985–93).

Trihalomethane concentrations were below the maximum contaminant levels in all DCWA samples

(1989–94).

The U.S. Geological Survey tested water resources of the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation in 1977 and

found them to be of excellent chemical quality. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe has sampled two of their

community wells for complete inorganic and organic analysis. All parameters tested were lower than state

maximum contaminant levels.

Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries

Ten stocks of anadromous salmon and trout are either now present in the Elwha River or, based on data

from neighboring rivers or other information, were present before the dams were built (see Table 7). They

are winter and summer steelhead trout, coho, summer/fall and spring chinook, pink, chum and sockeye

salmon, cutthroat trout, and native char (Dolly Varden and bull trout). Pacific lamprey and brook lamprey
Affected Environment

62

have also been documented in the Elwha River. In addition to these anadromous species, the Elwha

harbors many non-migrating fish, including sculpins, resident cutthroat, and rainbow trout, and marine

species such as flounder are found in the estuary. White sturgeon and smelt also have been observed in

this river in the past. Native char, chinook, and coho have special species status and are discussed in that

section of this SEIS. 

Table 7. In-River Life Cycle Stages of Elwha Salmonids

ELWHA SALMONIDS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Summer/Fall Chinook

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Spring Chinook

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Coho

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Pink Salmon

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Chum Salmon

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Sockeye Salmon

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Winter Steelhead

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Summer Steelhead

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Cutthroat Trout

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing

Char

Adult immigration

Adult spawning

Juvenile outmigration

Juvenile rearing
Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries

63

The Elwha River was legendary for its production of huge chinook; individual fish in excess of 100

pounds were recorded as late as 1930, 18 years after the closure of the river by Elwha Dam (Brannon

1930). The river was also known as a producer of large quantities of pink and chum salmon. Pink salmon

were numerous through the 1960s. They appeared to have died out by the late 1980s, but the population is

slowly rebuilding at this time.

About 70 miles of the mainstem of the river and its tributaries are estimated to have been available to

anadromous species before the dams were built. Steelhead and possibly other species could have traveled

as far as 43 miles up the 45-mile mainstem before encountering impassable stretches (James River II

1988). Carlson Canyon Falls at RM 34 may have blocked some species, depending on timing and the

condition of the fish. It is unknown but widely speculated that the relatively poor jumping ability of pink

and chum salmon may have restricted them to the river below Rica Canyon (RM 16) (James River II

1988).

The Elwha River is currently the largest producer of steelhead and chinook salmon on the Strait of Juan

de Fuca and is second only to the Dungeness River for coho. While the salmon and steelhead run sizes

appear minor in relation to Washington State’s total production, they are significant contributors to the

Strait of Juan de Fuca and Vancouver Island fisheries, with the exception of chum salmon production,

which is small compared to other streams emptying into the strait. Nearly all chinook, coho, and steelhead

are produced at hatcheries. A chum hatchery program was operated for 10 years but was abandoned in

1986. The tribe relatively recently began taking chum salmon eggs once again and is burying them in egg

trays set in the substrate in lower river side channels as an alternative, less invasive enhancement strategy.

Resident trout in the river system are dominated by rainbow trout and, to a lesser degree, native char

(Dolly Varden and bull trout). A very small number of cutthroat trout and brook trout are also present

(Morrill and McHenry 1995; Mausolf and Sundvick 1976; Collins 1983). The Elwha drainage is a major

wild trout producer on the Olympic Peninsula. Its ranking to other regional streams is not known, but a

creel survey conducted on Lake Aldwell, Lake Mills, and the middle reach indicated a high fishing effort

in the early 1980s (Collins 1983).

Current condition information is presented below for fish species that are not on the federal endangered

species list. Chinook, coho, bull trout, and Pacific and brook lampreys are discussed in the “Species of

Special Concern” section. 

Pink Salmon

Pink salmon are a major commercial salmon species in Puget Sound, returning primarily every odd year.

Elwha River pink salmon production has dramatically declined since 1979, with virtually no fish

observed to spawn in 1989 or 1991. However, spawning abundance in the last three cycles (1991, 2001,

and 2003) has been increasing, with several hundred fish observed spawning in 2001. The Elwha Tribe

has collected genetic samples from Elwha pink salmon, and the WDFW genetics lab is evaluating the

samples to determine if fish observed in the Elwha River are related to the Dungeness River pink salmon.

Pink salmon are a Washington State species of concern.

Chum Salmon

Chum salmon are a major commercial species in Puget Sound, infrequently captured by sport anglers.

The historic Elwha River chum run, like the Elwha pink run, was considered abundant. During the last

two decades, though, the Elwha River has been a small contributor to total chum production in the strait
Affected Environment

64

and a very small portion to Puget Sound, with runs to the Elwha River typically less than 1,000 fish and

peaking at 1,500 in 1980. Chum are a Washington State species of concern.

Sockeye Salmon

Sockeye salmon are one of the most prized commercial salmon species in Washington, although stateoriginated runs are small. Sockeye are a species of concern in Washington. All major stocks of sockeye

require a river system with a connected lake for spawning and rearing purposes. The only lake in the

Elwha River drainage is Lake Sutherland, now inaccessible to adults attempting to swim upstream

because of the Elwha Dam. Records from 1982–91 show an in-river harvest of only eight sockeye total

over the 10-year period (Hoines 1994); these fish were probably strays and could have come from coastal

(Ozette or Quinault), Puget Sound (Baker or Lake Washington), or Fraser River runs. It is also possible

that these fish were the returning adults of a kokanee population in Lake Sutherland that is known to be

producing smolts who pass through the spillway of the dam. There are no hatchery operations for sockeye

on the Elwha River.

Steelhead Trout

Steelhead trout, an anadromous race of rainbow trout, are one of the most sought-after sport fish in the

state and also support substantial tribal commercial harvest. Because of the tribal hatchery program, the

Elwha River is the largest producer of steelhead in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Although the Elwha ranked

10th among state streams for winter steelhead sport catch in 1987–88, this ranking has declined in recent

years (Washington Department of Fisheries [WDF] 1988; WDFW 1993).

Approximately 3,100 winter adults enter the river from an average of 82,000 hatchery smolts released

each year (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Council 1995). The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe operates a

commercial in-river fishery for hatchery run winter steelhead; these harvests average 1,450 fish per year

for the tribe (PNPTC and WDFW 1994). Sport anglers additionally harvest an estimated 1,150 winter and

355 summer steelhead each year (PNPTC and WDFW 1994).

Sea-run and Resident Cutthroat Trout

Both resident and anadromous races of cutthroat trout were probably present in the pre-dam Elwha River.

Sea-run cutthroat trout are a major sport species in the state, although they are less abundant than

steelhead in most areas (Johnston and Mercer 1976; DeShazo 1980). A regionwide decline in sea-run

cutthroat populations has occurred in the past 15 to 20 years (Trotter 1989).

Sea-run cutthroat are not abundant in the lower river, although they are caught incidentally (fewer than

five annually) during other in-river fisheries. Similarly, resident cutthroat trout are not numerous in the

upper reaches of the Elwha (Morrill and McHenry 1995), although small numbers were found in the

middle reach, particularly in Indian Creek. This population may be related to the large lacustrine native

cutthroat that occurs in Lake Sutherland. The Lake Sutherland cutthroat shares characteristics (large body

size, spawn timing) with the Lake Crescent cutthroat. It is possible that more isolated populations may be

present farther up tributary streams in this system, since cutthroat are often present (Trotter 1989). An

introduced population of westslope cutthroat is thought to exist in Long Creek.
Soils

65

Resident Rainbow Trout and Other Species

Rainbow trout and small populations of brook trout (nonnative) occupy the upper Elwha, as well as the

reservoirs and middle reach of the river. These are non-anadromous populations of trout, although the

impulse for rainbow to migrate to sea may remain.

Other fish that may occur in the Elwha River include threespine stickleback, sculpins, smelt, and sturgeon. Sturgeon are a major commercial and recreational species in Washington, with the most important

stocks utilizing the Columbia and Chehalis Rivers. While resident populations occur in the largest

Northwest rivers (i.e., the Columbia), most stocks are anadromous. They are occasionally taken in tribal

net fisheries in the Elwha River (James River II 1988). See the “Socioeconomic Environment” section for

more information about tribal, commercial, and recreational fisheries.

Soils

The mitigation measures analyzed in this SEIS are all located in Clallam County, Washington. No systematic soil survey has been conducted for the specific project area; however, several individual studies that

address soils in specific areas have been prepared for aspects of this project and are referenced where

appropriate. 

A 1987 Soil Conservation Service soil survey for the Clallam County area forms the basis for county data

on soils (Crain, pers. comm. 2003) and is used to discuss general soil types and locations within the

project area. 

Soil is characterized by physical, biological, and chemical processes that result from the interaction of

time, parent material, climate, living organisms, and topography (Birkeland 1974). For example, as soil

formed in the survey area, unweathered, moderately coarse textured parent material was exposed as the

continental ice sheet melted. It is believed that the climate was conducive to soil development during

most of the intervening period. Soil development actually begins when organic matter accumulates from

the first colonizing plants that occupy a soil surface. Marine sediments and most alluvium, loess, and

volcanic ash in the survey area have been involved in soil formation for 7,000 to 12,000 years. On a

geologic time scale, the soils in the study area are young.

Bedrock in the study area began as sediment or igneous rock deposited beneath the Pacific Ocean as

much as 50 million years ago. The sediment ranges in size from very fine clay and silt to pebbles and

cobbles. Uplifting as a result of slow movements and collisions between huge plates of the earth’s crust

are responsible for the structural formation of the Olympic Mountains. 

The oldest established age for coastal Pleistocene glacial deposits is about 71,000 years. The most recent

glaciation during which continental and alpine glaciers occupied western Washington (about 18,000 years

ago) is the Fraser glaciation, during which most of the foothills and mountains in the area were covered

with ice. Glacial drift deposited during this period covered or mixed previous glacial deposits and became

the landforms and parent material for many of the soils in the study area. The glacier scoured and

removed from the mountains the existing surface material, which was commonly replaced with glacial

drift. Glacial scour and erosion from steep slopes exposed fresh parent material. The mountainous

landforms and the parent rock are relatively old; however, the soils have formed in unweathered material

exposed since the last glaciation. 
Affected Environment

66

As sea level dropped around 15,000–20,000 years ago, a broad, vegetation-free coastal plain was exposed

along the Pacific Ocean. This area served as a source for loess, which covered much of the coastal area,

some areas to depths of 15 feet. About 6,600 years ago, Mount Mazama in southern Oregon erupted,

depositing a thick layer of volcanic ash across the area, contributing to the development of identifiable

ash-related soil properties in the area. 

Since the glacial period, mass wasting, surface erosion, and deposition have further modified landforms.

In the Elwha and other major rivers, eroded materials such as sandy gravel, cobbles, and boulders

transported by water were deposited as alluvial terraces. Sediment continues to erode from the valley

walls and is transported by the Elwha River and its tributaries. While the dams stop the natural flow of

sediment to the river mouth, alluvium from below Elwha Dam is stored along the river channel.

Proposed actions addressed in this document include activities along the lower 3.7 miles of the Elwha

River and a landfill site in western Port Angeles within the city limits, where the municipal water

treatment plant is proposed. Soil map units along the lower reaches of the Elwha River that may be

impacted include typic xerofluvents and Neilton very gravelly sandy loam. Clallam gravelly sandy loam

occurs at the landfill site. 

Typic Xerofluvents — These are very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that occur on

floodplains and in recent alluvium along 0%–5% slopes. Native vegetation is mainly mixed

conifers, deciduous trees, and shrubs. Elevation is near sea level to 300 feet. No single profile is

typical of this soil unit, but one commonly observed in the survey area is a surface covered with a

mat of organic material about 2 inches thick. These soils vary widely in texture within short

distances. Permeability is rapid, and available water capacity is low. Runoff is slow, and the

hazard of water erosion is slight. These soils are subject to occasional brief periods of flooding

from December through April (SCS 1987:68). 

Neilton very gravelly sandy loam — These are very deep, excessively drained soils found on

terraces and in glacial outwash, and they can occur to elevations of 1,600 feet. Native vegetation

consists mainly of conifers and shrubs. In low slope areas (0%–5%), the surface is covered with a

mat of organic material 1 inch thick. The surface layer is dark brown, very cobbly, sandy loam 6

inches thick. Permeability is very rapid, and available water capacity is very low. Runoff is slow,

and the hazard of water erosion is slight (SCS 1987:48). On steeper slopes organic material is

thicker. Available water capacity is very low, and runoff is low. The hazard of water erosion is

severe (SCS 1987:47).

Clallam gravelly sandy loam — These are moderately deep, moderately well drained soils found

on hills in compact glacial till and ranging in elevation from 40 to 1,800 feet. The native

vegetation is mainly conifers and shrubs. Typically the surface is covered with a mat of organic

material 2.5 inches thick. Depth to compact glacial till ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Permeability

is moderate down to the compact glacial till and then very slow in moving through this level.

Available water capacity is low; runoff is medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. The

effect of the layer of compact glacial till on use and management is similar to that of hardpan

(SCS 1987:23). 

Vegetation

The Elwha River valley is one of the longest drainages on the Olympic Peninsula, and it experiences a

climate transitional between drier conditions to the east and wetter conditions to the west, with a mix of

unique plant communities that are adapted to these climatic conditions. Madrone, Douglas-fir / manzanita,

and Douglas-fir / grand fir communities on dry, well drained sites represent eastern peninsula vegetation
Vegetation

67

types found in the valley. Forests dominated by western hemlock with an understory of ferns occur on

moist sites throughout the valley and are more characteristic of western peninsula vegetation.

Riparian and Upland Vegetation

Most of the study area consists of upland and riparian forest communities, including conifer, mixed

conifer/hardwood, and hardwood communities. Upland grassland and deciduous shrub communities are

sparsely distributed. Conifers, primarily Douglas-fir, comprise more than 75% of the trees in conifer

forests and 25%–75% in mixed forests. Much of the conifer and mixed forest in the study area is secondgrowth on land that was logged or burned between 40 and 120 years ago, or is disturbed. Conifers

comprise less than 25% of the trees in hardwood forests. Hardwood forests are usually dominated by red

alder interspersed with big-leaf maple, black cottonwood, and willow. Hardwood forests are common in

riparian areas as well.

A riparian zone is defined as the river channel and lands where vegetation is influenced by elevated water

tables and flooding, or by the ability of soils to hold water (Naiman et al. 1993). It is the zone of direct

ecological interaction between the forest and the river system (Swanson and Franklin 1992).

The riparian zone is ecologically important for many reasons. Long-term studies have found consistently

high levels of biological diversity. For example, more species of breeding birds use riparian areas than

any other habitat type in North America, and studies in the Cascades have found up to twice the species

richness in riparian zones compared to upland habitats (Douglas et al. 1992; Gregory et al. 1991).

Studies have also found that nearly 70% of vertebrate wildlife species in a region use riparian corridors in

some significant way during their life cycles (Naiman et al. 1993). The Elwha riparian zone provides, or

could provide, important habitat for threatened, endangered, or rare species. A natural riparian zone

reduces the severity of flood events, acts as a buffer to pollution sources entering the river, controls the

loss of groundwater nutrients into the river, and provides important fish habitat and food sources from

overhanging vegetation and associated terrestrial insects.

Riparian zone woody debris entering and accumulating in the river channel creates habitat for aquatic

insects, fish, small mammals, and birds, and it influences the formation of pools, river movement, and the

overall structural habitat diversity of the river system (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 1988; Gregory et al.

1991). Extensive research into the ecological role of woody debris has concluded that it is a critical

element of river ecosystems (Swanson and Franklin 1992).

In the project area for this SEIS, a riparian zone along the Elwha River from RM 2.8 to 3.7 would be

affected by modifying the WDFW fish-rearing channel (RM 2.8–3.0), modifying the industrial channel

and outlets for the Elwha water treatment plant (RM 2.8), replacing the existing rock diversion structure

and surface water intake (RM 3.5) with a new control weir, temporary diversion, and intake facility (RM

3.65), and floodproofing the existing DCWA well field (RM 3.7) or alternative well field site (RM 3.45).

Access road options for the water treatment plant include two alignments that reach the site from the

north and one that would improve an existing road from the south. All lie partially or wholly within the

riparian zone. An access road to the alternative well field would also cross riparian vegetation. Several

pipelines would be built as part of the proposed action: (1) a pipeline to carry water from the alternative

well field (if selected) to DCWA customers, (2) a pipeline from the treatment plant to the tribal hatchery,

(3) pipeline modifications or additions to carry surface water to the treatment plant, and from the plant to

the existing Port Angeles municipal waterline (connects the Ranney collector with the existing water

distribution system), and (4) a pipeline from the tribal wastewater collection point to Port Angeles for

treatment. All of these lines would lie within some portion of the riparian zone. 
Affected Environment

68

Vegetation surveys on both sides of the river from upstream of the existing rock diversion structure

(approximately RM 3.6) to slightly downstream of the WDFW fish-rearing channel (approximately RM

2.7) found a mixed conifer / deciduous forest composed of Douglas-fir, black cottonwood, western red

cedar, red alder, big-leaf maple, and grand fir. Shrubs include oceanspray, scotch broom, Oregon grape,

snowberry, saskatoon, and Himalayan blackberry. Herbaceous vegetation includes false Solomon’s seal,

stinging nettles, Siberian miner’s lettuce, and Robert geranium (for a complete listing, contact Olympic

National Park). 

In the vicinity of the existing rock diversion dam, vegetation and wildlife were surveyed in detail in 2004

(URS 2004b). This is the location of a proposed control weir, new intake structure, access road to the

structure, and a temporary diversion channel. The Elwha River in this area flows between two midchannel islands, one upstream of the existing rock diversion structure and one downstream of it. The

floodplain between these two islands is relatively broad, particularly on the west side of the river where

the temporary diversion channel would be located. This section of floodplain is about 1,000 feet wide,

with many dry side channels used as recreational access roads. Much of the floodplain is disturbed,

including an area of undeveloped campsites near the existing intake structure. The proposed temporary

diversion channel begins near the upstream end of the southernmost island and continues northward

across the floodplain (see “Surface Water Intake Plan,” page 17) following one of these dry side channels

through the floodplain forest. The diversion channel continues on past where the old side channel rejoins

the river to a spot just west of the northern mid-channel island, a distance of about 1,500 feet. Vegetation

is similar to the mixed conifer/deciduous forest that characterizes much of the area between RM 3.6 and

3.3, where the majority of development near the river would take place. Trees species include big-leaf

maple, red alder, black cottonwood, bitter cherry, western hemlock, and Douglas-fir. Common shrubs

include willows, cascara, trailing blackberry, Indian plum, red elderberry and salal in an understory of

sword fern, Pacific bleeding heart, orchardgrass, and other species identified above. Western red cedar is

the most common conifer species in the riparian forest.

Douglas-fir and western hemlock are common along valley walls and in the area above the floodplain.

This type of habitat occurs on the eastern side of the river in the vicinity of the planned intake and

diversion structure. The east bank is steep, with exposed rock close to the riverbank. Access to the new

intake would be via a 500-foot road built parallel to the existing Crown Z Water Road along the east

bank. In addition to Douglas-fir and western hemlock, which occur above the exposed rock, small

madrone trees, Sitka willows, Himalayan blackberry, and Scot’s broom grow in open habitat near the

exposed rock. Serviceberry is abundant in the small sandy area below the existing intake structure. 

A vegetation survey at the Elwha water treatment plant site found similar second-growth, mixed conifer /

deciduous forest (URS 2003b). A more in-depth survey of the proposed solids pipeline corridor, which

would parallel the north side of the existing overflow channel and would discharge into the river north of

this channel, also found young madrone trees and aspen where the soil is relatively dry and exposed to the

sun (URS 2004a). In addition to the trees identified above, the shrub layer of this forest includes willows,

cascara, trailing blackberry, Indian plum, elderberries, and huckleberries. Both the existing DCWA well

field and the proposed Elwha water treatment plant site have mowed grassy areas. 

The preferred alternative to provide potable water to Elwha Heights subdivision homeowners is by means

of a connection to the DCWA system. To provide this connection, a pipeline along Rife Road and Walker

Ranch Road would be replaced with a larger line, and a new section of pipe across a privately owned

piece of property would connect to the DCWA system. Vegetation along both Rife Road and Walker

Ranch Road has been disturbed by the roads themselves, lawns, driveways, and other activities, with

grasses and forbs such as velvet grass, tall fescue, timothy, thistle, and dandelion. Vegetation in the scrub

habitat adjacent to the road is similar to the deciduous/conifer forest described above (e.g., Douglas-fir,
Vegetation

69

western hemlock, red alder, big-leaf maple, salal, Indian plum). Once the pipeline veered away from the

road alignment and continued toward Elwha Heights, it would cross through a tree farm growing conifers

and hardwoods (Douglas-fir, western hemlock, red alder, red cedar, big-leaf maple, grand fir). Sitka

spruce and other conifers have also been planted. Shrubs are typical of deciduous/conifer forest described

above. The pipeline corridor would pass through a clearcut area where understory species and shrubs

dominate, along with field grasses and forbs, before reentering forested habitat near the connection to the

Elwha Heights homeowners pipeline at Edgewood Lane.

No development is proposed between RM 2.8 and RM 1.6.

Nearer the mouth of the river (RM 0.1 to 1.6) is the federal levee and the tribal fish hatchery. At the

southern end of the federal levee is the Halberg property. This is the site the tribe is considering using for

its relocated fish hatchery. Vegetation consists primarily of an ungrazed pasture with a variety of grasses

and common weedy species and two shelter belts of trees on the north and south ends. Tree species in the

shelter belts include big-leaf maple, red alder, Indian plum, Douglas-fir, and red cedar. Fruit trees also

exist on the property. The levee road in this area and to the southeast is more heavily vegetated, with a

second-growth forest on both sides of the road. The forest along the road and on the east end of the

property is relatively undisturbed and does not appear to have been logged in the last 30–40 years.

Surveys for protected or rare plant species found none, but botanists conducting the survey concluded that

the less disturbed nature of this forest may make it habitat for some of these species. 

At the north end of the levee (closest to the river mouth), a July 2003 survey found the roadway on top of

the levee to be vegetated with species typical of disturbed areas. These included dandelions, pineapple

weed, yarrow, and buckhorn. Vegetation in a dune area about 1,000 feet (300 meters) north of the

northern end of the levee includes dune wildrye, silver burweed, beach peak, and other species specific to

dune habitat. In the area east from the levee for a short distance, riparian species include big-leaf maple,

red alder, and black cottonwood, as well as grass species (brome, wheat grass, and bent grass).

Continuing south along the levee, the road vegetation is mowed. East of the middle section of the levee

some riparian tree species grow, but the understory is grazed and less than 1 inch tall. Some grand fir

seedlings have been planted in this area. Otherwise, vegetation to the east is weedy and typical of a

disturbed site. Similar conditions exist east of the levee to its southern end. To the west of the levee,

riparian forest species grow in the floodplain. Surveys in the spring and summer of 2003 noted that this

riparian vegetation does not extend to the western edge of the levee, apparently because of maintenance. 

The primary upland location that would be affected is the proposed Port Angeles water treatment plant

site, which is adjacent to the city’s existing landfill. This approximately 5-acre site consists of bulldozed

land, regrowth forest about 20 years old or older, and a small wet drainage on the south. Numerous old

roads crisscross the forested part of the site. Forest vegetation is mixed conifer and hardwood species,

including Douglas-fir, western red cedar, red alder, big-leaf maple, and grand fir. Herbaceous weed

species (including clovers, vetches, stinging nettles, sword fern, and Siberian miner’s lettuce) occur on the

site, with fewer in the forested area.

Roads and sections of pipelines could traverse upland areas. For example, a DCWA pipeline connection

to the city’s municipal water system would lie along Airport Road. A survey of this alignment showed

that much of the area is mowed. Trees along the road included black cottonwood, Douglas-fir, aspen, and

bitter cherry. 

A pipeline to transmit wastewater from the tribe and Valley community residents to the city for treatment

could also disturb upland vegetation, although much of the pipeline (two routes are currently under

consideration) would run along existing pipeline, railroad, or road corridors. An existing pipeline climbs
Affected Environment

70

the bluff east of the river near the location of the WDFW rearing channel and extends along the

Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way and Kacee Way. From here, it crosses Lower Elwha Road and enters

the Port Angeles city limits. The route continues across Dry Creek and moves eastward along the railroad

right-of-way to 18th Street and connects to the city’s infrastructure. A portion of this route may be used

for the tribe’s wastewater pipeline. In addition, the tribe is considering part of the route for a new road

that may become the primary access to the Lower Elwha Reservation (under separate project analysis in

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act through the Indian reservation roads program). If

both were located in this corridor, the wastewater pipeline would follow the primary access route up the

bluff to meet the railroad right-of-way, then follow that right-of-way for approximately 1.5 miles to the

connection site at 18th Street. Tree species on the east side of the pipeline include big-leaf maple, red

alder, Douglas-fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. All of the trees are small because of recent

maintenance. The vegetation along the railroad grade is primarily weedy species. A second pipeline route

under consideration would follow the Lower Elwha Road in a southerly direction, then use the same

easterly route along the railroad right-of-way, as described above.

The vegetation at the location of the proposed chinook holding/rearing ponds on Morse Creek is primarily

upland. The creek lies in a narrow, steep valley at this point, and vegetation is predominantly secondgrowth red cedar and big-leaf maple. Undergrowth consists of alder, salmonberry, sword fern, and trailing

blackberry. Outside the immediate area, most land is used for grazing and other agricultural purposes.

Wetland Vegetation

Wetlands modulate river flows during storm events, stabilize banks and erosion, trap sediments, retain

nutrients, provide wildlife habitat, and facilitate energy and nutrient flows (Brinson et al. 1981; Adamus

and Stockwell 1983). At least three types of wetlands — forest, scrub/shrub, and emergent — are present

in the study area. Willow and red alder are the dominant tree species in wetlands; common understory

species include salmonberry, Indian plum, and skunk cabbage.

Elwha Water Treatment Plant. A survey in the vicinity of the Elwha water treatment plant site found

six wetlands between outflow channels of the WDFW rearing channel to the north and south, just east of

the industrial channel to the east, and the banks of the Elwha river to the west (URS 2003b). The

classification that Clallam County uses for wetlands is I to IV, where I is the highest quality (Clallam

County Environmental Policy 27.12.210).

• Two Class III wetlands at the northern end of the site are emergent wetlands dominated by reed

canarygrass and are very small. (Wetlands A and B on the “Wetlands: Elwha Water Treatment

Plant Site” figure.)

• Two larger wetlands (wetlands C and D) are part of the same forested and emergent wetland

complex and are located east of the industrial channel. Dominant tree species include red alder

and western red cedar, with salmonberry, reed canarygrass, and American brooklime present in

the understory. One of these wetlands includes large patches of open water, with habitat features

such as snags and floating logs, and a stream feeds the other wetland. The two wetlands are

separated by a utility line right-of-way. Both are Class I because they are large, have diverse

habitat features, and consist of largely native species of vegetation. They are outside the area

slated for development, but they could experience indirect effects and could require a 200-foot

buffer (Clallam County Environmental Policy 27.12.215). The wetlands are most likely oxbows

or disconnected segments of what once was the Elwha River. It is also likely that the industrial

channel separated these wet areas from the river.
Vegetation

71

Wetlands: Elwha Water Treatment Plant Site
Affected Environment

72

• The fifth wetland (wetland E) is along the overflow channel at the southern end of the study area.

It is a small, class III, emergent wetland dominated by spike bentgrass and American brooklime. 

• The final wetland (wetland F) is at the eastern end of the northern overflow channel. It is a small

strip wetland with both emergent and forested components dominated by reed canary grass and

red alder. Because it is small and has lower diversity, it is a Class III wetland. 

Some small wetland areas dominated by these same species were also found adjacent to some of the side

channels and sloughs in the area. However, because buffers between construction and the river are

mandatory (Clallam County Environmental Policy 27.12.215), they would not be directly affected. Other

small wetlands may exist in the vicinity. For example, pipeline leakage along the route of the current Port

Angeles municipal pipeline, and the proposed site of other pipelines or road development, has created

some wetland habitat, where elodea, duckweed, forget-me-not, dock, and small flowered bulrush have

become established. 

Four small wetlands exist in the immediate vicinity of the proposed control weir/intake (URS 2004a).

There are two small forested wetlands near seeps along the upslope portion of the county’s existing access

road on the west side of the river. Devil’s club, lady fern, youth-on-age, and skunk cabbage grow in the

wet soils of these seeps. These wetlands are also in the vicinity of the DCWA alternative well field (URS

2002b). One wetland drains into the pond described below, and the other into a culvert under the road.

Both are considered Class III wetlands. 

A third wetland on the west bank of the river is very near the existing diversion structure. This small

wetland has both emergent and scrub/shrub components and is dominated by creeping buttercup and red

canary grass. The scrub/shrub community is dominated by Sitka willow, Nootka rose, and red-osier dogwood. The fourth is another scrub/shrub wetland at the northern end of the northern mid-channel island

and is dominated by Sitka willow and red alder. Both of these may have higher value by virtue of both

their vegetation and location, but both are quite small and are unlikely used extensively by wildlife or able

to provide much in the way of flood modulation or other function. 

DCWA Alternative Well Field. Ponds and side channel habitat, including a string of three interconnected ponds about 50 to 100 feet across and less than 4 feet deep, exist in the river floodplain

southeast of the alternative DCWA well field site. The northernmost pond is surrounded by emergent

wetland, and sedges and rushes grow around the pond edges. Part of the ponds may be affected or need to

be filled to raise the well field, although an additional survey is needed to verify this.

If the alternative well field site was selected, one of the five alternative pipeline routes to bring water

across the river to users would have to be selected. Wetlands surveys for the five pipeline routes found

small forested wetlands and/or riparian habitat to differing degrees. The existing access road to the new

well field crosses two small forested wetlands. 

• Alternative route A would not affect wetlands, but would require the removal of a few trees. 

• Alternative route B would involve tree removal and would have a potential impact to forested

wetlands along the cross-country portion of the alignment. 

• Alternative route C would only affect the same two forested wetlands as route A, but would

otherwise take place within the footprint or along an existing road right-of-way. 

• Alternative route D would require a river crossing, which would involve drilling beneath the

river, floodproofing the pipeline in the river, or constructing a bridge. Directional drilling for a

pipeline under the bridge would result in the removal of some riparian forest or scrub/shrub

habitat. Floodproofing could create a change in the function of the floodplain, with impacts to
Wildlife

73

fish or aquatic species, or wetland or riparian habitat. Bridge construction could also result in the

removal of riparian vegetation. 

• Alternative route E would require some construction along Elwha River Road and could require

the avoidance of emergent wetlands along the road shoulder and the removal of a few trees, as

well as the construction of a pipeline across the floodplain (Bureau of Reclamation 2003a). 

Another option for the Dry Creek Water Association would be to abandon its well field and connect to the

city’s municipal water supply system. This pipeline route would follow Airport Road for about 3,000 feet.

No wetlands were observed along this route, although a natural water spring exists at the upper end of

Airport Road.

Elwha Heights. Several small wetlands were identified along the proposed corridor to connect the Elwha

Heights subdivision to the DCWA water supply system. A scrub/shrub, class II wetland dominated by

Nootka rose and reed canarygrass was found along the west side of Rife Road, and two small, class III

emergent wetlands along Walker Ranch Road, vegetated with reed canarygrass, creeping buttercup, and

velvetgrass. Three small emergent class III wetlands are clustered near where the pipeline would intercept

Edgewood Lane in a clearcut area. One of these wetlands includes a small pool and an aquatic bed

community of vegetation, including duckweed and pondweed.

Privately Owned Levee. Currently an emergent coastal wetland on the west side of the river mouth and

west of the private levee is prevented from flowing into the Elwha River estuary by the 900-foot levee.

This wetland is partially fed by water seeping through the levee during high flows. There may also be

saltwater influence because it is separated from the Strait of Juan de Fuca by low-lying sand berms.

Modification of the existing levee could result in some fill of this wetland, while relocation of the levee

westward or removal could allow this area to reconnect to the river and once again become part of the

estuary.

Wildlife

The majority of construction work associated with water quality and water supply mitigation in the

vicinity of the Elwha River would take place between RM 2.8 and 3.7. The proposed Elwha water

treatment plant would be near RM 2.8, and the existing WDFW fish-rearing channel is between RM 2.8

and 3.0. The existing rock diversion structure and intake is at RM 3.5. The crest of the replacement

structure would be located about 225 feet upstream. The DCWA existing well field is at RM 3.7, and the

alternative site is between RM 3.4 and 3.5. Downstream, construction would take place at RM 2.0–2.3 on

the Halberg property and along the 1.5-mile federal levee. This stretch of river, as well as upland areas

where the Port Angeles water treatment plant would be built, were the focus of recent wildlife (and

vegetation) surveys. 

As noted above, most of the wildlife habitat in this section of the river is a mix of conifer and riparian /

deciduous forest with an undergrowth of riparian forbs and shrubs, including willows, blackberry,

elderberry, salal, and snowberry in the shrub layer, and lower lying wild ginger, Oregon grape, and sword

fern. Some drier sites and shrub/scrub vegetation exist on the valley slopes, and lawns are present at or

near the DCWA well field and at the industrial channel. Some small forested wetlands and emergent

wetlands exist in the vicinity. Six emergent and/or forested wetlands, including two that are larger with

more diverse habitat near the industrial channel, were recently mapped near RM 2.8–3.0 (URS 2003b). 

Several additional emergent wetlands, as well as some pond and side channel habitat, occur in the river

floodplain near the alternative DCWA well field site and near the outflow of two overflow channels from
Affected Environment

74

the existing industrial channel. Wetland surveys for the five identified DCWA pipeline route options (if

the well field is relocated) found small forest wetlands and/or riparian habitat to differing degrees, and the

preferred alternative to connect Elwha Heights homeowners to the DCWA water system would also

include a pipeline alignment that could affect six small, lower quality wetlands. One of these wetlands

may serve as wildlife habitat to aquatic birds species.

Habitat in the vicinity of Morse Creek is riparian and upland forest; some previously cleared areas are

dominated by grasses and brush.

Mammals

In surveys conducted in fall 2002, and spring or summer 2003, both low-lying riparian or wetland habitat

and upland habitats were surveyed for wildlife species. The following descriptions are a result of those

surveys and of information from the FEIS and other planning documents for the area.

In the upland areas, as well as in the riparian forests, Columbian black-tailed deer tracks and scat were

observed, and their trails were common in and near forest edges throughout the vicinity of wildlife habitat

from RM 2.8 to 3.7. Roosevelt elk are known to winter in the forested area adjacent to the DCWA well

field and farther north (see the FEIS for more information on this species). Signs of beaver activity in one

of the side channels near where the Elwha water treatment plant would be built were also noted, and a

river otter was observed near the north end of the existing industrial channel. Although they were not

observed, it is known that common mammalian predators in the project vicinity include coyote, bear,

cougar, weasel, and mink. Small mammal species either observed or expected in habitat common in the

project vicinity include Douglas squirrels, Townsend chipmunks, deer mice, Pacific jumping mice,

shrews, moles, voles, bush-tailed wood rats, snowshoe hares, and mountain beavers. These same species

likely occupy upland habitat near the Morse Creek site.

While no signs of mammalian life were observed in the site slated for development of the Port Angeles

water treatment plant, two black-tailed does and their fawns were seen in the landfill area. 

Surveys of the federal levee and options for its extension, as well as of the Halberg property on the

reservation where a pump station for treated wastewater would be located, found evidence of deer

browsing on cherry and apple trees. 

Several species of bats, including little brown myotis, California myotis, hairy-winged myotis, long eared

myotis, silvery-haired bat, hoary bat, and big brown bat are associated with forests in the area. 

Birds

Between RM 2.8 and 3.7, grassy areas near the DCWA well field and on the grounds surrounding the

industrial channel included robins, savanna sparrows, and dark-eyed juncos. Red-tailed hawks and violetgreen swallows were observed near the DCWA well field or along one or more of its possible distribution

routes. A western flycatcher, which inhabits riparian and deciduous hardwood forest, was seen at this site

during a May 2003 survey. Diving ducks (such as mallards and other puddle ducks), killdeer, and redwinged blackbirds may occupy roadside emergent wetlands and side channel ponds along the Elwha

River in the vicinity of the DCWA well field and areas to the north. 

Surveys of both sides of the river between the existing intake and diversion at RM 3.5 and the WDFW

fish-rearing channel at RM 2.8 found that both banks are well used by recreationists. Soils are severely
Wildlife

75

compacted by vehicle traffic. Although some birds were heard in the canopy, none was definitively

identified, and very few birds were observed. A more recent survey (URS 2004a) found a great blue

heron, a family of common mergansers, and American dippers in the river or along the shoreline near the

existing intake structure.

In the river near the WDFW rearing channel, the river has split around a forested island. The flow around

the east side of this island was found to contain ducks and other water birds. Surveys conducted in

February 2003 reported a great blue heron and a family of common mergansers, hooded mergansers,

buffleheads, American dippers, common goldeneye, and belted kingfisher (URS 2003b). In the two larger

wetlands east of the industrial channel mallards and a pileated woodpecker were noted. A possible

pileated woodpecker roost tree was observed on the valley side slope east of the wetland complex. 

Farther downstream surveyors found considerable wildlife activity at the southern end of the levee at the

Halberg property. Robins were feeding on cherries from the fruit trees on site; American goldfinches and

black-headed grosbeak were also foraging. A single ruffed grouse and an immature red-tailed hawk were

observed. A mature red-tailed hawk was soaring overhead and calling to the immature bird, suggesting a

nest in the vicinity. One route for extending the levee southeast through the Halberg property was also

surveyed. This habitat is extremely dense forest with little open canopy. A pileated woodpecker and

Wilson’s warbler were observed in this area. Birds along the levee to the mouth of the river were

primarily common species associated with urbanized areas (such as the American gold finch and the

white-crowned sparrow). Near the mouth of the river and the north end of the levee, turkey vultures,

crows, and shorebirds (gulls, cormorants, and a black oystercatcher) were observed. A brood of California

quail nested in the vicinity. Although ravens scavenged on recently emptied fish tanks at the tribal

hatchery, no other species were observed in the vicinity. Despite this, the Audubon migratory bird surveys

between 1994 and 2001 have found a multitude of species at the mouth of the river and along the adjacent

shoreline. These include species of special concern, such as bald eagles, Harlequin ducks, and marbled

murrelets (see “Species of Special Concern”), as well as ducks (bufflehead, green-winged teal,

mergansers), grebes, loons, and several species of raptors (red-tailed hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s

hawk). A variety of sparrows, finches, vireos, swallows, and warblers were also found in more heavily

forested areas. 

Forest birds either identified during surveys along the river or in upland areas or known to inhabit the area

include American robins, song sparrows, black-capped chickadees, varied thrushes, northern flickers, and

winter wrens. Other species considered likely to occur in project area forests include ruffed and blue

grouse, mountain chickadees, great horned owls, western screech owls, band-tailed pigeons, red-breasted

sapsuckers, and pileated and downy woodpeckers. Shrub/scrub species observed in the upland area of the

Elwha water treatment plant included robins, dark-eyed juncos, song sparrows, American goldfinches,

house finches, gold-crowned sparrows, and spotted towhees. Spring and summer surveys of the Port

Angeles water treatment plant site found violet green swallows, robins, turkey vultures, American

goldfinches, flickers, ravens, and many white-crowned sparrows. An occupied red-tailed hawk nest is

located on the north edge of the plant site, just inside the forest fringe.

A May 2003 survey of Airport Road (the route for connecting the Dry Creek Water Association to the

city’s municipal water system) found the same or similar species as at the Port Angeles water treatment

plant site — robins, flickers, violet green swallows, and white-crowned sparrows. Other road and pipeline

alignments were surveyed. Roads into the Elwha water treatment plant site that would be graded or

upgraded were primarily observed to have species associated with urbanized sites. A yellow warbler and

cedar waxwings foraged on wild berry bushes along the Kacee Way alignment, and cedar waxwings and

dark-eyed juncos were present along the Rife Road alignment. Similar passerine species were found at the

Morse Creek site. A recent survey (URS 2004a) confirmed the presence of these same species of birds
Affected Environment

76

along the corridor where the pipeline would be replaced to connect Elwha Heights homeowners to a

treated water supply. One wetland along this route in a clearcut field was considered large enough to

attract birds. Although no birds were observed during the survey, species such as puddle ducks and redwinged blackbirds are considered likely inhabitants.

Lake Aldwell is used as early winter staging habitat (late November through December) by trumpeter

swans (Jordan 1995). While the Pacific Coast population of trumpeter swans is neither threatened nor

endangered, these birds are of local concern. The swans, which are also known to use Lake Mills, have

recently numbered up to 80. Those that spend the entire winter in the Elwha / Port Angeles / Sequim area

number approximately 60 (Jordan, pers. comm. Oct. 2003). The Pacific Coast population currently totals

approximately 16,300 birds, with 2,000 wintering in western Washington (USFWS 1995a). The swans

use a variety of habitat types, including agricultural fields, forested wetlands, ponds, lakes, and estuaries.

Although trumpeter swans are outside the study area for this SEIS, they are discussed here because

mitigation for the loss of reservoir habitat was not proposed or explored for effectiveness in the FEIS.

Several bird species of concern or with special protected status inhabit the Elwha River valley and may be

affected by mitigation activities proposed in this SEIS. They are discussed in the “Species of Special

Concern” section below.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Common reptiles in the project area include northwestern garter snakes, common garter snakes, and

northern alligator lizards. Northern red-legged frogs and roughskin newts were observed in the vicinity of

the DCWA existing or alternative well field sites and in forested portions of the Elwha water treatment

plant site. Calls of Pacific chorus frogs and northern red-legged frogs were heard in the vicinity of the

wetland complex just east of where the Elwha water treatment plant is planned. Northwestern

salamanders, western red-backed salamanders, and tailed frogs (a federal species of concern) were not

observed but are considered likely residents of the Elwha water treatment plant site. 

Species of Special Concern

Mammals

Pacific Fisher

No federal threatened or endangered mammal species exist in the project vicinity. However, Olympic

National Park contains habitat suitable for the fisher (Martes pennanti), a species that is listed by the state

as endangered and by the federal government as of concern. The status of the Pacific fisher is not known

on the Olympic Peninsula, but is presumed to be rare (Aubrey and Houston 1992). Currently, the fisher is

very rare in Washington. Infrequent sightings and incidental captures indicate that a small number may be

present. However, despite extensive surveys, no one has been able to confirm the existence of a

population in the state. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife believes that any remaining

fishers in the state are unlikely to represent a viable population, and without a recovery program including

reintroductions, the species is likely to be extirpated from the state (Lewis and Stinson 1998). 

No evidence of the fisher was reported in any of the four surveys of habitat in the affected area. Although

the Elwha valley is considered good fisher habitat, particularly the riparian areas, the last reliable sighting

of a fisher in the Elwha River drainage in the study area was in 1975, just outside the park boundary near

Herrick Road. There is also a historic record from near RM 22 (WDFW 1995a).
Species of Special Concern

77

Fisher biology is characterized by low population density and a low reproductive rate. They have

extensive home ranges and generally avoid large openings, which suggests that viable populations would

require large areas of relatively contiguous habitat. Throughout their range, fishers are generally associated with late-successional coniferous and mixed coniferous/deciduous forests. In western Washington

fishers may be restricted by frequent soft snows or deep snow packs to elevations below 6,000 feet.

Fishers most likely use forests that have a high canopy closure, multiple canopies, and shrubs, and that

support a diverse prey base. Large diameter trees, large snags, tree cavities, and logs are an important

component of suitable habitat because they are most often used for den and rest sites. 

Bats

Four species of bats are considered federal species of concern; Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus

townsendii, formerly Plecotus townsendii), Keen’s myotis (Myotis keenii), long-eared myotis (Myotis

evotis), and long-legged myotis (Myotis volans). These bats are all associated with mid- to late-seral forests. Townsend’s big-eared bats require caves or mine shafts for hibernation and nursery colonies. All

exist in the vicinity of the mitigation projects, although none was observed during surveys in 2003.

Birds

Bald Eagle

The federally threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been observed year-round in the area.

Bald eagles feed primarily on high concentrations of glaucous-winged gulls and other marine birds along

the coast, chinook salmon carcasses in the lower river section, non-anadromous fish stocks in the

reservoirs, and carrion, including elk and heron carcasses. 

Surveys conducted for the FEIS recorded 14 sightings of eagles (James River II 1990). The survey results

and discussions with regional biologists and local landowners indicate that eagle densities upriver decrease with distance from the delta, with very low numbers above Lake Mills. Substantially greater

numbers of eagles were detected along the coast than anywhere along the river corridor, possibly because

of high prey availability compared to the middle and upper river sections within the study area. The availability of salmon carcasses appears to be an essential food source for wintering and breeding eagle populations elsewhere in Washington (Stalmaster and Gessaman 1984). As noted in the FEIS, the distribution

or number of bald eagles along the Elwha River may change when the dams are removed and salmon

stocks restored.

Surveys of the sites where development would or might occur during both wintering and nesting periods

found no individuals or nests. However, the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Port Angeles to Neah Bay is used

by 30 to 35 nesting pairs; two of these sites are just east of the Elwha delta (McMillan, pers. comm. Sept.

1995). Development near the coast, such as for the extension of the federal levee, would have the most

potential to impact bald eagles. 

The Morse Creek site generally lacks habitat required by bald eagles, as the creek is small and usually

partially hidden beneath a dense understory. Bald eagles may use the creek corridor to access the strait or

other feeding areas.
Affected Environment

78

Northern Spotted Owl

The federally threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) typically inhabits unlogged oldgrowth forests or mixed forests of mature and old-growth timber (Forsman et al. 1984). Northern spotted

owl surveys have found seven pairs between the Elwha headwaters and the national park boundary

(FERC 1993), two active nests within 2.2 miles of the river and Lake Mills, and at least one additional

nest between U.S. Highway 101 and Lake Aldwell, 1.2 miles from Elwha Dam. “Site center” and nesting

locations frequently move small distances (generally less than 0.5 mile) from year to year, so that the

precise distances from owl sites to the dam sites vary annually. No nest sites in the vicinity of proposed

construction of projects for water quality, water supply, flooding, or other actions considered in this SEIS

have been located (see USFWS “Biological Opinion,” FEIS Appendix 7). Old-growth forest habitat does

not exist in the vicinity of any of the construction sites, including Morse Creek, so no owl nesting is

expected anywhere in the impact area. 

Marbled Murrelet

The federally threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) has been observed flying in the

Elwha valley and probably nests in the drainage. In western Washington this species prefers to nest in

old-growth or large sawtimber forest stands within 39 miles of the coast and below 3,500 feet elevation

(Brown 1985). Nesting season in Washington is between April 1 and September 15.

Surveys conducted in 1995 and 1996 within the lower Elwha drainage indicate few birds travel daily

north to south through the Elwha valley. No evidence of nesting was found within the vicinity of either

the Elwha Dam or the Glines Canyon Dam; the nearest activity occurs in upper parts of adjoining

tributary streams such as Boulder Creek, or farther upriver (FERC 1993; Hathorn et al. 1996). No nesting

in the vicinity of proposed projects is therefore considered likely. Also, Morse Creek does not have

murrelet habitat in the vicinity of the state rearing ponds (Farinas, pers. comm. 2003).

Reconnaissance-level surveys indicate that the Elwha valley between Krause Bottom and the delta serves

as a flight corridor between the marine environment and nesting stands along the upper reaches of the

valley or tributaries, where an estimated 15 pairs of marbled murrelets bred during the 1990 season. 

Harlequin Duck

The harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is not listed as threatened or endangered, but it is a federal

species of concern, which means it is being monitored and could be listed at some future date. Harlequin

ducks typically breed in forests adjacent to swift-moving streams. During spring and summer they feed on

invertebrates inhabiting the streams. Wintering harlequins feed on snails, limpets, crabs, and chitons in

nearshore saltwater areas. Relatively large numbers of the ducks were found near the river mouth in

winter surveys in the early 1990s (WDFW 1994). The Elwha River drainage, above and below the dams,

is considered prime nesting habitat for the harlequin duck (Schirzto, pers. comm. Oct. 1994), although no

nests were sighted in any of the 2003 wildlife surveys of the project vicinity. 

Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is both a federal and state species of concern. It is a breeding

resident in the project area and occasionally observed year-round. One pair is known to traditionally nest

along the Whiskey Bend trail (Sharpe 1990; WDFW 1995a). The goshawk breeds in the dense canopy of

mature conifer forests or mixed stands of conifers and deciduous trees. It preys on medium-sized
Species of Special Concern

79

mammals and birds, hunting from concealed perches or while flying. Foraging often occurs at the edges

of forests; grouse are an important prey item (Verner and Boss 1980). No goshawks were seen during any

of the four wildlife surveys conducted for this SEIS.

Pileated Woodpecker

The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is a state species of concern. It requires large trees and

snags for reproduction, as well as for feeding (Schroeder 1983). In the project vicinity, they probably

prefer Douglas-fir and deciduous riparian forests with two or more canopy layers (Bull and Snider 1993).

These large woodpeckers excavate a new nest cavity each year; old cavities are used by numerous other

species in the ecosystem, including saw-whet and screech owls, Vaux’s swifts, flickers, chickadees, flying

and tree squirrels, wood rats, and bats. Two pileated woodpeckers were identified during surveys for this

SEIS — one east of the Elwha water treatment plant site, and a second in the forest east of the Halberg

property where the southern end of the levee could be extended. 

Amphibians

Northern Red-legged Frog

The northern red-legged (Rana aurora aurora) is a federal species of concern. The frog occurs widely

west of the Cascade Mountains from British Columbia to California. This large frog lives in forests, damp

meadows, marshes, ponds, lakes, and along streams. During rainy seasons, individuals often occupy land

away from water, although they prefer mature forests with abundant leaf litter and fallen logs. Red-legged

frogs tend to be restricted to lower altitudes. Northern red-legged frogs were observed in some of the wet

areas near the existing or alternative well field for the Dry Creek Water Association. Red-legged frogs

breed in ephemeral ponds, or perennial ponds that do not have fish. A more thorough survey of affected

wetland locations would likely uncover additional individuals of this species.

Tailed Frog

The tailed frog (Ascaphus truei), a federal species of concern and a state-monitored species, lives in cold,

clear mountain streams in the Cascade Mountains and Coast Range from southern Canada to northern

California, as well as in eastern Washington and Oregon mountain ranges and the Rocky Mountains.

Tailed frogs are sensitive to stream siltation and warming. They are most abundant in streams in oldgrowth forests, but can also occupy more open streams. Tailed frogs are likely to occur in forested

portions of the site proposed for the Elwha water treatment plant, as well as other affected wetland

locations. 

Western Toad

The western toad (Bufo boreas) is a federal species of concern. It is a large, robust animal found in all

regions of Washington except for the most arid portions of the Columbia Basin. The toads are distributed

widely throughout the western United States and Canada. Western toads are most common near marshes

and small lakes, but may wander great distances through dry forests or shrubby thickets. Outside the

breeding season, this species is nocturnal and spends the day buried in soil, concealed under woody

debris, or in the burrows of other animals. Western toads were observed in forested portions of the site

proposed for the Elwha water treatment plant, and a more thorough survey of affected wetland locations

would likely uncover additional individuals of this species.
Affected Environment

80

Fish

As noted in the “Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries” section of this SEIS (see page 61), 10 anadromous fish species co-exist in the Elwha River, several of which are offered special protection, or are

currently being monitored and considered for this protection. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are both federal threatened species. Most other Elwha

salmon and anadromous trout, including chum (O. keta), pink (O. gorbuscha), and sockeye (O. nerka)

salmon, as well as coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarkii) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), have been

listed as Washington State species of concern, and impacts to these species are analyzed in the “Fisheries”

section of the SEIS. Other freshwater or resident species of fish include the Pacific lamprey (Lampetra

tridentatus), which is a federal species of concern. The Puget Sound / Strait of Georgia evolutionarily

significant unit (ESU) of coho salmon was declared a candidate for listing by the National Marine

Fisheries Service in 1995. This ESU includes the Elwha River runs of coho salmon.

Chinook Salmon

Chinook salmon are described by the

season in which they enter their natal

streams to spawn. Spring chinook enter

fresh water several months earlier than

summer/fall chinook. Before the Elwha

and Glines Canyon Dams were built, it is

believed that chinook entering the river in

the spring swam farther upriver to spawn

upstream of Carlson Canyon Falls at RM

34. Fish entering in the late summer or

fall spawned downstream of RM 34.

Chinook enter the Elwha River primarily

from June through September (see Table

7, page 62). Adults require cool water

(below 14o

C) and medium-size spawning gravel, usually laying eggs in a main channel of the river rather

than its side channels or tributaries. Peak spawning occurs from September through mid-October, and

adults die within days or weeks after spawning. Juveniles either migrate out their first spring or rear in the

river and leave the following May and June as yearlings (Williams et al. 1975). All spend some time in

the estuary as they grow and adapt to salt water. Native Elwha underyearlings move into the offshore

marine environment in late July and early August (Schroder and Fresh 1985).

Table 8. Number of Hatchery Chinook Returning to the Elwha River

Return Year

Number of Returning

Elwha River Chinook Return Year

Number of Returning

Elwha River Chinook

1992 4,002 1997 2,527

1993 1,669 1998 2,409

1994 1,580 1999 1,625

1995 1,814 2000 1,913

1996 1,877 2001 2,246

SOURCE: PNPTC, WDFW, and Makah Tribe 2003.
Species of Special Concern

81

Chinook have been regularly stocked for many years. As early as 1930, E. M. Brannon, supervisor of the

Dungeness Fish Hatchery, proposed the stocking of chinook in the Elwha. By 1945 the program was fully

implemented (Port Angeles Evening News, Oct. 3, 1945). The major stock has been the Elwha River

summer/fall chinook; spring chinook that were planted in 1973 and 1977 were from Dungeness and

Solduc hatchery stocks. Since 1985, approximately 775,000 chinook yearlings have been released

annually, with fry and fingerlings totaling 2.6 million fish per year (PSMFC 1995). As shown in Table 8,

an average of 2,000 chinook have returned in recent years (1999–2001). The Puget Sound chinook

salmon, which occurs in the Elwha River and nearshore marine areas of the river, was listed as threatened

under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1995. As a result, fisheries restrictions and other measures

were taken to help protect this species. 

Coho Salmon

Coho salmon are a highly prized sport

and commercial fish species in Washington State. Currently, Puget Sound /

Straight of Georgia coho, which include

Elwha runs, are candidates for listing

under the Endangered Species Act. The

Elwha River, because of its hatchery

program, is one of the largest coho

producers on the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Even though the run size is less than 1%

of the total Puget Sound coho production, it accounts for approximately 35%

of the runs returning to the north

Olympic Peninsula (WDFW 1995b).

Adults enter the river from September

through early January, with some arriving as late as February. Spawning takes place from October into

January, primarily in side channel habitats. Adults die shortly after spawning. Most juveniles emerge

from the gravel from late winter through mid-spring (Williams et al. 1975; Scott and Crossman 1973).

Juveniles live for over a year in the system before migrating to the ocean from late March through midJune; peak outmigration occurs in May (Wunderlich 1983). Overwintering habitat, which is critical for

survival, is often associated with wooded off-channel areas such as ponds and side channels, though main

channel pools also are used (Peterson 1980; Peterson and Reid 1984; Swales and Levings 1985).

Coho are typically released from the hatchery into the river as yearling fish in April and May. Recent

releases (1990–94) ranged from 400,000 to 800,000 smolts per year. Since 1977, annual coho returns to

the Elwha have varied from as high as 16,000 to as low as 1,100 fish, with the majority being hatchery

fish. For the 1990–94 period, the average return to the river was just under 3,000 coho per year (PointNo-Point Treaty Council [PNPTC] and Makah Tribe 1994).

Native Char (Dolly Varden and Bull Trout)

In general, native char (Dolly Varden and bull trout) populations in Washington are minor sport species

because of their limited abundance in most rivers (although they are quite abundant in some systems, such

as the Hoh River). They are widely distributed in the state. Both anadromous and freshwater races exist.

Anadromous populations migrate from the sea upriver from May to December (usually August to
Affected Environment

82

September). They spawn in the fall and early winter, and fry emerge from April to mid-May. Migrations

to the sea begin at age three or four in the spring, and fish return to the same river in the fall, spending

only late spring to fall in the marine environment each year of their lives. Like cutthroat, char generally

migrate only a short distance from the river in the marine phase (compared to other salmonids) and spend

the entire time in tidal water (Scott and Crossman 1973). In systems with lakes, resident fish may similarly migrate, spending summers in the lake and other times in the river (Wydoski and Whitney 1979).

Coastal / Puget Sound populations of bull trout were listed as federally threatened in November 1999.

Bull trout are generally not anadromous, but anadromy does occur in many Puget Sound and coastal river

populations (USFWS 2000). Bull trout have specific habitat requirements, including cold water, complex

cover, stable substrate, high channel stability, and stream/population connectivity. Water temperature

influences bull trout distribution more than any other environmental factor (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

It is believed that two subpopulations of bull trout live in the Elwha River. The lower river population

(below the Elwha Dam) is probably anadromous and is likely “depressed,” or as determined by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, to have had either a major life history form eliminated, abundance that is declining or half the historic abundance, or less than 5,000 total fish or 500 adults present. Officially, the

status of this subpopulation is unknown. Available habitat for this subpopulation includes the 5 miles of

the mainstem below the Elwha Dam, and three small, low-gradient tributaries. The location of spawning

habitat is unknown. 

An upper river subpopulation both between the dams and upstream of the Glines Canyon Dam also exists.

Bull trout between the dams are assumed to be part of the upper river subpopulation, but genetic testing to

confirm this has not been completed. Bull trout upstream of Glines Canyon Dam use Lake Mills as

foraging habitat, as well as more than 50 miles of the mainstem and tributary habitat. Based on surveys,

between 240 and 875 bull trout are estimated to live in the habitat above Glines Canyon Dam, and

between 65 and 900 bull trout between the dams in the upper river subpopulation. 

Pacific Lamprey and Brook Lamprey

Lampreys are jawless fish, with both resident and anadromous life histories. Pacific lampreys (Lampetra

tridentata) spend most of their lives in freshwater rivers before entering the ocean as adults to feed. Here

they grow to 16–27 inches before returning to fresh water to spawn and die. In large river systems, such

as the Klamath and Eel, Pacific lamprey may have a number of distinct runs or races, like salmon. Today,

Pacific lampreys are primarily concentrated in medium and large sized, low-gradient Pacific streams. The

Western brook lamprey (L. richardsoni) is nonparasitic and does not migrate to the ocean to feed. It

prefers small tributaries, rather than the mainstems of rivers. Throughout its range, the lamprey has been

heavily affected by water developments, agricultural and forest land management practices, and rapid

urbanization in many watersheds. Several conservation organizations petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the Pacific lamprey and three other lamprey species as threatened or endangered in

January 2002. Pacific and brook lampreys have been reported in the Elwha River (URS 2002b, 2003b).

State Sensitive Plant Species

All of the areas where water, flood, fisheries, or other mitigation measures might be constructed were

surveyed for protected plant species. No federal threatened or endangered species were found, but several

species are considered sensitive by the state of Washington (i.e., populations are vulnerable or declining,

and they could become endangered or threatened without active management). The species at risk are:

tall bugbane (Cimicifuga elata)

spreading miner’s lettuce (Montia diffusa)
Air Quality

83

giant helleborine or stream orchid (Epipactis gigantea)

false hedge-parsley (Caucalis microcarpa)

Dortmann’s cardinalflower (Lobelia dortmanna)

pink sand-verbena (Abronia umbellata spp. breviflora)

Cotton’s milkvetch (Astragalus cottonii)

long-stalked draba (Draba longipes)

western yellow oxalis (Oxalis suksdorfii)

loose-flowered bluegrass (Poa laxiflora)

royal Jacob’s ladder (Polemonium carneum)

floating bur-reed (Sparganium fluctuans)

featherleaf kittentails (Synthyris pinnatifida var. lanuginosa)

Bugbane and spreading miner’s lettuce generally grow in moist forests (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973).

Giant helleborine is a nonshowy orchid that prefers streambanks, seeps, and lake margins. Surveys conducted in 1990 located helleborine between the road to Whiskey Bend and the Glines Canyon Dam,

although this population could not be relocated in a 1995 survey. False hedge-parsley grows in rock outcrops and was located in 1995 near the Glines Canyon Dam and downriver. Surveys in February, May,

and July of 2003 failed to locate individuals or populations of any of these species; therefore no impact

analysis is included in this document.

Air Quality

Ambient air pollutant concentrations for the Olympic National Park region are within national, state, and

local air quality standards. This attainment status may be attributed to the low population density and the

lack of many major, older industrial pollution sources. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and suspended

particulate matter from coal-fired power plants, refineries, and pulp and paper mills are the air pollutants

of principal concern. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set health-based standards for six air pollutants: ozone,

nitrogen oxides, fine particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), carbon monoxide, lead,

and sulfur dioxide. Clallam County and the project site are designated as attainment areas (i.e.,

concentrations below the standards) for all criteria pollutants. This designation is based on representative

ambient air quality monitoring.

Concentrations of air pollutants in the study area are influenced by sources of emissions and the

dispersion by weather patterns of the region. Major sources of air pollutants (greater than 100 tons per

year or 0.907 metric tons) in Clallam County are the Nippon Paper Industries and K-Ply mills. Silvicultural burns, smoke from wood-burning stoves, dust, and other particulate matter generated from

vehicles on unpaved roads, vehicle exhaust, and smoke from campfires also affect the air quality in the

middle and lower Elwha valley area and Olympic National Park.

The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program is designed to allow growth in areas of good

air quality without allowing pollutant concentrations to exceed the ambient air quality standards. Because

of its unique nature, Olympic National Park has been designated a PSD Class I area. Class I areas receive

special air quality protection. To ensure that park air quality remains good, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and

visibility are monitored within the park. Sulfur dioxide and ozone are pollutants of concern because these

pollutants affect visibility, and many plant species in the park are sensitive to these pollutants. Clean offshore air flowing onto the Olympic Peninsula maintains the near pristine air quality of the national park.

However, the park is subject to episodes of smoke and particulate matter pollution due to slash burning on
Affected Environment

84

adjacent lands and occasional forest fires. These short-term events affect visibility, but have only limited

impacts on other park resources.

Noise

The study area and the surrounding region are relatively quiet, with few sources of noise. Within the

study area natural quiet is affected by recreational uses and vehicle access, particularly from the existing

and alternative DCWA well field sites downstream to the WDFW fish-rearing channel. Casual roads,

trails, and bike paths are common in floodplains until a high flood washes them away. Picnicking, hiking,

fishing, and boating all occur along the river and its edges in this vicinity. Roads down to the river,

crossing the river, or along the river to access facilities such as the existing DCWA well field, Ranney

collector, and fish-rearing channel all carry traffic. Farther downstream, there is a road on the top of the

federal levee, and many tribal residents live east of this levee. About 25 residents live on the west side of

the river behind a private levee. The lower Elwha River valley supports residential, logging, and

agricultural activities. Natural sound levels are also affected by occasional aircraft overflights. 

Ongoing landfill operations, as well as the nearby airport, are sources of noise at the site of the proposed

Port Angeles water treatment plant. 

The Morse Creek site lies in a rural valley with few sources of noise.

Cultural Resources

The Elwha River valley is rich in cultural resources that include buildings, structures, landscapes,

traditional cultural properties, ethnographic resources, and archeological sites. These resources represent a

long, continuous human occupation and demonstrate the importance of the Elwha River, which has

provided sustenance to the valley’s inhabitants while serving as a transportation corridor into the heart of

the Olympic Peninsula.

The Elwha River valley is the homeland of the Lower Elwha Klallam people. Elwha Klallam villages

were located adjacent to important fishing stations at Ediz Hook, the mouth of the Elwha River, and the

confluence of Indian Creek and the Elwha River. Seasonal camps for fishing and other subsistence

activities were located along the Elwha River and its tributaries and along the shores of Freshwater Bay

and Ediz Hook. The Elwha Klallam hunted for elk, deer, and other game and gathered berries, roots, and

plant materials along the bottomlands of the Elwha. Their use of the valley extended upriver through the

headwaters to include subalpine and alpine landscapes deep within the Olympic Range. 

Euro-Americans began to settle and acquire lands in the lower Elwha valley in the 1860s; the Elwha

Klallam were not considered citizens and were not allowed to purchase land in their own homeland. In

1884 the passage of an effective Indian homestead law allowed the Elwha Klallam to acquire legal title

from the United States for their homesteads. While Indian homesteaders cleared lands, engaged in

farming and stock raising, planted orchards, and raised crops and animals for sale to merchants and others

in Port Angeles and the surrounding region, the Elwha River fisheries remained the mainstay of their

economy.

The river provided not only the resources for sustenance and lifeways of the Elwha Klallam, but was at

the heart of their ceremonial, cultural, and spiritual existence. Construction of the Glines Canyon and

Elwha Dams decimated fish runs critical to their livelihoods and flooded villages, fish camps,
Cultural Resources

85

homesteads, medicinal plant and food gathering and preparation sites, and probably burial sites. Some of

their most important spiritual sites were (and still are) made inaccessible by the dams or the reservoirs. 

Euro-American exploration of the Elwha River valley began in the latter part of the 19th century, and by

the end of the century a number of Euro-Americans were homesteading in the valley, drawn by the river

and the area’s resources. Conditions on the Olympic Peninsula such as dense vegetation, and a climate

that restricts crop selection and shortens the growing season, limited the potential for homesteading, and

farming never went much beyond subsistence. Mining, logging, and other development activities

eventually declined on lands set aside for the Olympic Forest Reserve in 1897, Mount Olympus National

Monument in 1909, and Olympic National Park in 1938. In the 1930s the Forest Service was charged

with protecting national forest lands, which it accomplished by creating a vast network of trails, shelters,

guard and ranger stations, and other buildings and structures. Devising and constructing this network of

facilities was a tremendous effort in terms of human and fiscal resources. It represents an important

period of growth and development of the Forest Service on the Olympic Peninsula.

The Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams, hydropower plants, and associated facilities are now listed on the

National Register of Historic Places as historic districts. Ongoing research suggests that the dams are part

of a larger cultural landscape that extends from the Lake Mills reservoir above Glines Canyon Dam to the

Elwha Dam, including Olympic Hot Springs Road. Several other resources listed on the national register

reflect the role of the federal government in the Elwha River valley (the Elwha Ranger Station and

campgrounds). The Elwha Ranger Station, the Altaire campground, and the Elwha campground continue

to be used for their originally intended purpose.

The Elwha Ranger Station Historic District, with its residential, administrative, and utility buildings and

structures, was built between 1930 and 1936 by the U.S. Forest Service. The district represents the

stewardship efforts by the Forest Service to manage its lands on the peninsula as the federal agency

striving to establish a presence in the wilderness. The complex consists of 14 buildings in two main

clusters bordering the Elwha River Road. The ranger station and three residential buildings with accompanying outbuildings lie just east of the road. All but one structure is wood frame. Most are capped with

gable roofs and are sheathed with either horizontal half-log siding, or horizontal channel drop siding. The

buildings in this group were constructed in the early to mid 1930s and express definite features of the

bungalow/craftsman style of architecture. All of the buildings contribute to a sense of time and place that

speaks to an earlier era of forest management rarely found today in the national park.

The Elwha Ranger Station Historic District is significant for its association with politics and USFS

activities within what is today Olympic National Park. The district also is an example of the distinctive

type of architectural style used by the Forest Service in its years of managing the national forest lands on

the Olympic Peninsula prior to the establishment of the national park. The district has integrity of

location, setting, design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association, and it meets the registration

requirements set forth for these properties in the multiple property documentation form.

No prehistoric cultural resources eligible for the national register are currently known to exist in the

project area (see the “Affected Environment: Cultural Resources” in the 1996 FEIS for more detailed

information on the cultural history of the study area); however, ethnohistoric and ethnographic accounts

abound with details of the Elwha Klallam’s use of the river valley. The lack of physical evidence of this

use is due to several factors, including dense vegetation and the dynamic nature of the pre-dam Elwha

River. Additionally, detailed cultural resource surveys up to this point have focused mostly on the river

floodplain, where river dynamics make the preservation of prehistoric archeological remains unlikely.
Affected Environment

86

Beginning in the fall of 1994 and continuing into the early spring of 1995, a detailed cultural resources

survey of portions of the project area was undertaken (Schalk et al. 1996). The survey team included

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe members, tribal consulting archeologists, and Olympic National Park cultural

resource staff. The survey was limited to areas of the project owned by the federal government, tribal land

holdings, and some project lands. Individually owned private lands were not inspected as part of this

project. A total of 18 cultural resource sites and three cultural resource isolates were recorded during the

survey. All of these resources are associated with the historic period. Four properties, including two

homesteads, a cabin, and a refuse dump, were determined to probably be eligible for the national register;

the remaining properties were deemed ineligible. 

Other cultural resource field surveys in the area include a 1983 cultural resources survey of the location

where Morse Creek chinook-holding ponds would be located (Daugherty and Welch 1984). This project

found no significant cultural resources.

More recently, a small survey and monitoring project for the Elwha water treatment plant found no

evidence of cultural resources within its project area (URS 2003b). Additional surveys of the sites of the

Port Angeles water treatment plant and the Elwha surface water intake facility, and a surface survey of the

proposed pipeline alignment for Elwha Heights water connections (URS 2004b), found no evidence of

archeological, historic, or other cultural resources. These 2004 surveys included 10 test pit trenches and

the monitoring of eight geotechnical borings.

A 1995 survey of the entire river valley below the dams (Schalk et al 1996) found that the chances of

locating prehistoric or archeological sites would be poor because most of the project area is in the

floodplain. In addition, many of the proposed development sites — including the Elwha and Port Angeles

water treatment plants, federal levee extension, some of the pipeline routes (notably a long portion of the

tribal wastewater distribution pipeline to Port Angeles, and a pipeline connecting the existing Port

Angeles water distribution system to the DCWA distribution system), and some of the possible access

routes to these facilities — are already disturbed and unlikely to have any intact cultural resources.

However, as noted above, cultural resource surveys or other means of protecting site-specific resources

are part of the programmatic agreement between the park and the state historic preservation officer. 

In a recent feasibility study, specific well field sites considered as options for the Dry Creek Water

Association were visited (URS 2002b). Cultural resource studies conducted at these sites, coupled with a

review of Schalk et al. (1996), resulted in the determination that no evidence of archeological materials or

features was apparent at either the existing or the alternative well field site.

A 1983 cultural resource survey of the location where the Morse Creek chinook holding ponds would be

located found no significant cultural resources. The Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic

Preservation indicated at that time that a project similar to the proposals considered in this SEIS would

have no adverse effect on archeological or historic sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of

Historic Places (Farinas, pers. comm. 2003). 

Socioeconomic Environment

For the purposes of this SEIS, only information pertinent to a cost-benefit analysis is presented in this

section; more information on the county’s economic base is available in the FEIS. Generally, this SEIS does

not update information presented in the FEIS unless there have been major changes with bearing on the

selection of an alternative. Since 1996 economic changes include the purchase of the dams by the federal

government and increases in the cost of electricity. However, the choice to remove the dams and the choice
Socioeconomic Environment

87

to manage sediments as described in the FEIS have not changed as a result. As noted in the “Purpose and

Need,” the focus of this SEIS is on the mitigation measures needed to prevent additional impacts to water

users, fisheries, and residents in the floodplain. Because costs associated with the entire project have

changed as a result of these mitigations, the SEIS presents updated information on the benefits as well. 

Clallam County

Clallam County encompasses an area from just east of the city of Sequim westward along the Strait of

Juan de Fuca to the most westerly point of land in the continental United States, Cape Flattery, and south

to the town of Forks. Port Angeles is the largest city in the county. The county also contains a major

portion of Olympic National Park. Four treaty tribes — the Elwha Klallam, the Jamestown S’Klallam, the

Makah, and the Quileute — have reservation lands in Clallam County.

Most of the county’s population is concentrated around Port Angeles and Sequim. Port Angeles continues

to be the population center of the county, accounting for over 32% of the total. Factors that contribute to

this concentration include industrial, recreational, and tourist activity associated with Port Angeles’ deep

water harbor; the “rain shadow” which makes the climate in the east end of the county more attractive;

and landownership patterns that put most of the south and west areas of the county in large commercial

timber holdings or in Olympic National Park.

The county’s growing tourist industry serves many visitors drawn by Olympic National Park; ferry access

to Victoria, British Columbia; salmon fishing; and opportunities to enjoy the varied scenic and

recreational amenities in this area. More recently, the county’s growing retirement community has created

employment gains in the service sector of the economy (White et al. 1992).

The 1990 census estimated Clallam County per capita income at $12,755; county unemployment stood at

8%. Median household income increased from $16,890 in 1980 to $25,434 in 1990. Consistent with

national trends, earned income from employment in the county declined from 59% to 50% of all income

from 1980 to 1988.

County employment was estimated at 23,310 persons out of a potential workforce of 25,500 in May 1992

(White et al. 1992). The highest growth in employment between 1985 and 1990 was in the government,

retail/wholesale, and construction sectors. Clallam County has lagged behind the state in employment

growth, but has exceeded the state in the retail/wholesale and government sectors. Poverty levels in

Clallam County were almost 2% higher than for Washington State as a whole in the 1990 census. 

The government of Clallam County operated on a 1993 budget of $14.8 million (Gerdon 1994). Of this

amount, $4.3 million came from property taxes and $2.1 million from sales tax payments to the county’s

general fund. The 1994 property tax from structures associated with the Glines Canyon Dam was

$116,000, and with structures at the Elwha Dam, $114,000 (Gerdon 1994).

Fisheries and Fish Processing 

Commercial and recreational fishing have been a cornerstone of Clallam County’s economy. Three

sectors exist in the commercial fishing industry — fishing, processing, and retail. The fishing sector

primarily involves the direct harvesting of fish by private non-tribal and tribal fishermen. The processing

sector consists of wholesale cleaning, preparing, and canning of fish. The retail sector characterizes the

final sales to consumers through retail markets and restaurants. Since 1980, prices per pound for all

salmon stocks analyzed have declined, in some cases dramatically. This is in large part due to the increase
Affected Environment

88

of salmon fish farming operations in the United States and abroad (Carr, pers. comm. Jan. 2003), which

has reduced the prices for traditional commercial fishermen (Crain, pers. comm. 2001). The benefits of

these three sectors to the local economy are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Benefits of Clallam County Commercial Fishing

in Real 2001 Dollars

Sector Benefit — 3% Discount Rate Benefit — 7% Discount Rate

Fishing $12,177,692 $5,335,345

Processing $ 6,461,632 $2,831,530

Retail $ 5,557,749 $2,435,443

Economic benefits associated with sportfishing are based on the net revenue increase to the commercial

sportfishing industry associated with increased harvests after the restoration of the Elwha River.

Information on the average trip expenditure weighted by the number of residents and non-residents and

by the type of trip each usually takes (charter, private, rental, shore, etc.) showed an average trip

expenditure of $58.99 (Carr, pers. comm. Jan. 2003). Translating this into dollars per fish caught

($108.24) indicates the benefits to the region of sportfishing from the Elwha River is currently about $9.5

million in 2001 dollars (discount rate 3%). 

Recreation/Tourism

Recreation and tourism play a major economic role for Clallam County and the Elwha River drainage. In

1993 annual jobs and annual payroll in the travel and tourism sector accounted for approximately 2,000

jobs and generated $21.3 million. Clallam County tax receipts from this sector were estimated at $1.4

million in 1993. These figures are expected to increase slowly over the long term. Travel and tourism

expenditures in Clallam County in 1993 amounted to $116.9 million. Related payroll income was $18.8

million.

Principal visitor attractions are Olympic National Park, saltwater sport fishing in the adjacent ocean, and

tourist travel to Olympic Peninsula sites and to Victoria, Canada. More than 4,000 accommodation units are

available within the county, including hotels, motels, and campgrounds. This sector of the Clallam County

economy is expecting significant growth in the future (White et al. 1992).

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

The Elwha Klallam people played a substantial role in the area’s early economy: homesteading in the late

1800s, selling produce to residents, and working in the lumber camps and mills in the early 1900s. In

1910 construction on Elwha Dam began. Although this structure and the Glines Canyon Dam (completed

in 1927) provided electricity for milling forest products at Port Angeles, they also preempted the greatest

part of the salmon resource secured to the Elwha Klallam by the Treaty of Point No Point, severely

affecting the tribe’s social and economic well-being. Preemption by Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams of

the treaty fisheries that were secured to the tribe has combined with an almost total lack of effective

access to alternative economic opportunities, leaving the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe today relatively

economically disadvantaged.

Tribal social circumstances have paralleled economic difficulties. Tribal society exhibits significant social

support for its members, particularly on reservations and through extended families; however, Bachtold
Public Health and Safety

89

(1982), specifically referencing the Lower Elwha Klallam and other Northwest tribes, reports strong

linkages between economic well-being, health, and self-worth and concludes that continuing economic

deprivation creates overwhelming stress among tribal members.

The tribe continues to operate a fish hatchery for chinook, coho, and steelhead on the lower Elwha, and it

considers the fishery potential of the Elwha River its most significant economic asset. Most tribal fishers

presently rely on the river’s fisheries to some degree to obtain a relatively small amount of income and/or

food each year.

Ediz Hook

Port Angeles’s deepwater harbor is protected from storms by Ediz Hook, a natural sand barrier that

encircles the harbor from west to east. Ediz Hook was formed with material eroded from adjacent sea

bluffs and from Elwha River sediment deposition. Over the years, construction of dams on the Elwha and

erosion control measures on the sea bluffs have substantially reduced natural recruitment of material to

Ediz Hook; consequently, the hook now loses more material to wind and wave action than it receives. As

a result, in 1978 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers installed a rock-based blanket to reduce erosion of

Ediz Hook at a cost of $5.6 million. Repair and maintenance costs approaching $100,000 per year are

expected to control further erosion.

Public Health and Safety

The 1996 FEIS noted several issues of critical importance regarding public health and safety, including

earthquake potential, dam safety, and hazardous materials. Since 1996, mitigation measures related to

impacts of dam removal have been developed. Measures that could affect public health and safety are

those designed to address anticipated impacts to water quality / supply, wastewater utility improvements,

and fish restoration. The proposed mitigation actions that could affect public health and safety relate to

worker safety and the use or handling of hazardous materials. 

Worker Safety

Construction activity related to proposed mitigation actions would include industrial and municipal water

treatment plants, associated distribution and roadway systems, the removal and replacement of intake and

diversion structures related to water treatment, and improvements of tribal wastewater systems, well

drilling, and culvert replacement. These actions could affect the health and safety of construction workers. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003), over 1,200 construction workers were killed in 2002

while on the job. These studies focus on general construction categories such as heavy construction

(roads, structures, pipelines), special trades (plumbing, electrical, etc.), and transportation, all of which

are involved in this proposal. 

Construction activities for water quality mitigation are expected to last approximately two years. A

variety of earth-moving and excavating equipment would be used, including trucks (premix concrete,

flatbed equipment, materials delivery, power utility, trash), and worker transportation vehicles. According

to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (2003), the frequency and reasons for

fatal accidents involving heavy trucks varies, depending on, among other things, factors such as drivers,

equipment, time of day, and environmental conditions. Statistically, the greatest number of fatal accidents
Affected Environment

90

occurred in June, with about two-thirds of them in rural areas (much of the study area would be

considered rural). In the United States, approximately 35% of all fatal accidents involving trucks occur on

local trips (a 50-mile radius).

In Washington State approximately 57% of vehicle accidents occur in dry weather, and 33% occur in wet

weather (snow and icy weather contribute to still smaller accident percentages). Based on data from the

state, Clallam County had 629 vehicular accidents with eight fatalities in 1996 (Washington State DOT

2003).

Hazardous Materials

The operation of both the industrial and the municipal water treatment plants would require the handling

and use of chemicals including liquid aluminum sulfate, liquid and dry polymers, liquid sodium

hypochlorite, and potassium permanganate. These chemicals require safe handling, storage, and use,

much of which is regulated primarily by the federal and state governments. Onsite process control and

monitoring laboratories would use standard reagents necessary to monitor the water plants and ensure safe

operation, worker safety, and environmental protection.

The use of motorized equipment (all types) in construction activities and routine facility operations would

involve the use of petroleum products, and consequently, the potential for hazardous spills and leaks. As

such, chemicals could jeopardize public health and safety, and appropriate handling and proper equipment

maintenance are critical to prevent accidental releases into the environment. Adequate and timely spill

containment and clean-up procedures would prevent a small accident involving hazardous materials from

becoming a much larger problem for public health and safety.
91

Impacts

This chapter presents the results of the impact analysis for the no-action alternative and the proposed

action for mitigation measures related to water supply, water quality, flooding, groundwater, fisheries,

revegetation, removal of dam rubble, and trumpeter swans. As noted earlier, the no-action alternative is

the same alternative that was presented in the FEIS, with some updating as needed. The proposed action

is the proposed set of mitigation measures described in the “Alternatives” chapter of this SEIS. For each

impact topic, pertinent regulations and policies are summarized, and the methodology used in analyzing

impacts is described. The methodology discussion includes sources, approach, and impact thresholds

(negligible, minor, moderate, major). Each analysis includes a discussion of cumulative impacts, which

are impacts that would add to (or subtract from) the impacts of other actions, regardless of when these

actions occurred (in the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future). 

The NPS Management Policies 2001 require an analysis of potential effects to determine whether or not

actions would impair park resources. The fundamental purpose of the national park system, as established

by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by subsequent legislation, as amended, begins with a mandate to

conserve park resources and values. NPS managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the

greatest degree practicable, adversely impacting park resources and values. However, the laws do give the

National Park Service the management discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as the impact does not constitute

impairment of the affected resources and values. Although Congress has given the National Park Service

the management discretion to allow certain impacts within a park system unit, that discretion is limited by

the statutory requirement that the agency must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a

particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that,

in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources

or values. An impact to a park resource or value is more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent

that it would have a major adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Impairment may result from NPS activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities

undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the park. 

The following process was used to determine whether the various alternatives had the potential to impair

park resources and values:

1. The park’s enabling legislation, the General Management Plan, the Strategic Plan, and other

relevant background were reviewed with regard to the park’s purpose and significance, resource

values, and resource management goals or desired future conditions.

2. Management objectives specific to resource protection goals at the park were identified.

3. Thresholds were established for each resource of concern to determine the context, intensity, and

duration of impacts. 
Impacts

92

4. An analysis was conducted to determine if the magnitude of impact reached the level of

“impairment,” as defined by NPS Management Policies.

The following impact analysis includes any findings of impairment to natural and cultural resources and

values in the park for each management alternative.

Flooding

Summary of Regulations

Executive Order (EO) 11988 (“Floodplain Management”) directs each federal agency to “provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of floods on human safety,

health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.”

The “National Park Service Floodplain Management” policies (Director’s Order [DO] #77-2) specify

requirements for carrying out EO 11988 in national parks. Floodplains that are subject to regulation

include the 100-year floodplain, the 500-year floodplain, and the extreme floodplain

The NPS Management Policies 2001 (NPS 2000) require that the occupancy or modification of floodplains should be avoided wherever possible. Where no practicable alternative exists, mitigating measures

are to be implemented to minimize potential harm to life, property, and the natural values of the

floodplains. DO #77-2 provides specific direction on developments proposed in floodplains within

national parks. A statement of findings in response to DO #77-2 will be included as an appendix in the

final SEIS.

Washington State regulations that affect development activities in and near floodplains and wetlands

include the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.010 et seq.), the State Hydraulic Code (WAC 220-

110-010 et seq.), the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48.010 et seq.), and the state floodplain

management program. The Shoreline Management Act was passed to manage appropriate uses of

Washington’s shorelines. The State Hydraulic Code is intended to protect fish from damage by

construction and other activities in all state waters; it is carried out through a hydraulic project approval

obtained from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hydraulic project approval is required

for any work within the high-water areas of state waters. Washington State’s floodplain management

program establishes statewide authority for floodplain management through the adoption of regulatory

programs compliant with the minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program; such

programs are administered by local governments. 

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

The effects of riverbed aggradation for the proposed action were analyzed by the Bureau of Reclamation

through computer modeling. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assessed impacts to flood control levees,

roads, wells, private property, and other structures based on the riverbed aggradation analyses. A more

recent set of analyses took into account flood levels during a larger storm in 2002 (28,000 cfs, whereas

the earlier data relied on a 13,000 cfs storm) and more detailed topographic information on the floodplain,

riffles, and pools in the river (USACE 2003). Hydraulic models were recalibrated to reproduce the

surveyed high water marks of the 2002 flood, and split flows were taken into account. The relative

magnitude of impacts is defined by the following terms:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection.

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable.
Flooding: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

93

Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent.

Major — The impact would be severe.

An impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it would have a major

adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

Both the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams are operated in a “run-of-the-river” mode, which means that the

reservoir level is held constant and very little of the water entering the drainage is stored or released

differently from the way it was before the dams were built. Because of this, only short-duration storms or

some periods of snowmelt are stored in the reservoirs. 

Flooding now occurs along parts of the Elwha River, but at a lower elevation in some places than before

the dams were built (see FEIS, Figure 9, Table 32, and Appendix 4). This is because sediment transport of

coarse-grained materials was stopped by the dams, and much of the riverbed material (sand and gravel)

downstream from the dams has washed out to sea. Very little coarse-grained sediment enters the middle

and lower reaches of the Elwha River; the only sources of sediment now are from tributaries, landslides,

and bank erosion.

The degree of degradation varies from the Glines Canyon Dam to the mouth of the river, and it is generally more pronounced in the lower reach. In general, bedrock prevents extensive degradation of the

riverbed, especially in the middle reach between the two dams and for the mile of river below the Elwha

Dam. This reduced water elevation translates to a reduced flooding risk that could be a minor, beneficial

impact for some property owners along the Elwha River. Table 10 shows the current level of flood

protection for each of the property owners and facilities affected by dam removal.

The armoring or channeling associated with the loss of bedload material in some cases has also reduced the

width and amount of the river’s migration. Recent remodeling of current flooding conditions by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers found the reach of river near RM 2.3 and the Halberg property is laterally stable

with a maximum meander belt width of 700 feet (USACE 2003). The right riverbank has migrated about

500 feet eastward since 1930, and the channel has braided into two threads. Near the southern terminus of

the federal levee at RM 1.7, the meander belt is nearly 2,000 feet wide. Here the west bank has migrated

westward about 1,000 feet since 1939. Stream power is greatest in this region at RM 2.3 and drops off

sharply where the valley widens up- and downstream. Therefore, sediment deposition following dam

removal would be lowest in the vicinity of RM 2.3 and greater both up- and downstream from this point. 
Impacts

94

Table 10. Elwha River Valley Structures and Existing Flood Conditions

for the 100-Year Frequency Flood Event

STRUCTURE RM EXISTING FLOODING CONDITIONS

Locally constructed, privately owned levee (west

bank)

0.0–0.1 Protects 30 acres of land for 25- to 50-year frequency

flood, but is considered structurally unstable now.

Lower Elwha federal flood control levee (east bank) 0.1–1.6 Protection for up to 200-year flood.

Private tribal residences between beach berm and

federal levee

0.0–0.2 Backwater from a 100-year flood inundates 114 acres and

from a 200-year flood, 120 acres; between 15 and 21

structures affected.

EPHA residence and well 1.4 Private residence and private well are 2′ below the 100-

year flood elevation. New wells are above the future 100-

year flood level.

Tribally constructed levee located at surface water

collection vault

1.8 Protection for up to 100-year flood level (needs review).

Port Angeles industrial water supply channel 2.5–3.1 Protected from the 100-year flood by an access road.

City of Port Angeles Ranney well collector 2.8 Well caisson and chlorination building are at the 100-year

flood elevation.

WDFW fish-rearing facility 2.8–3.0 Shallow nuisance type flooding occurs with a 100-year

flood.

Water wells at the fish-rearing facility 2.8 Wells 2.5′–2.8′ below the 100-year flood level.

West bank residences 3.5 Two structures and associated private wells are 2′–3.5′

below the 100-year flood elevation and are flooded by a

10- to 30-year flood.

East bank residence 3.5 Residence and well are 2′ below the 100-year flood levels

and are flooded by a 10- to 20-year flood.

DCWA wells and access road 3.7 Floor elevation of one well house is at the 20- to 50-year

flood level. Access road flooded by a 10-year flood.

Highest well above 100-year flood elevation.

East bank private well 7.9 Situated near the confluence of the Little and Elwha

Rivers, well lies 2′–3′ below the 100-year flood level.

East bank residences 8.4 Three structures flooded by a 5- to 10-year flood.

River training dike 8.5 Does not offer flood protection but redirects high velocity

flows. Flooded by the 25-year flood.

East bank residence 9.5 Residence and well are 1.5′ below the 100-year flood

elevation.

Elwha campground 11.0 Campground and well are below the 100-year flood level;

currently floods at less than 5-year flood frequency.

Elwha Ranger Station 12.0 Site is 2′ above the 100-year flood elevation.

Altaire campground 12.5 Partially flooded by annual floods. Flooded by as much as

8′ during a 100-year flood.

Elwha Valley (Olympic Hot Springs) Road 1 mile inside park and 0.3–0.6 mile outside park are

below the 100-year frequency flood elevation.

Bridges None are affected by high water levels or floating woody

debris during flood events.

SOURCE: USACE 1995a.

Although the effect of sediment storage behind the dams has been to lower the flood stage for

downstream properties, thus providing a minor benefit in this regard, it has also had adverse effects on the

river and riparian ecosystem. Flooding supplies some wetland and backwater areas such as pools and side

channels, which are rare and valuable habitat. Because the flood stage is lower, several of these pools or

channels, which presumably were regularly refilled by the river before the dams were built, have been
Flooding: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

95

inactive for the most part, and they are only refilled and functional during a moderate or larger sized

flood. Also, reduced channel migration and lateral adjustment result in fewer sites for regeneration of

riparian vegetation, causing a more mature and less diverse riparian zone.

Several structures identified in Table 10 are either protected by existing flood control measures to some

extent, or are flood control measures themselves. For example, levees on both the east and west riverbanks near the mouth protect tribal and private residences and structures from some flooding. These

structures modify the extent of the floodplain depending on their size, setback, and the floodplain characteristics. The federal levee is set back from the river channel several hundred feet, so impacts to the

floodplain are minimized. However, floods in 1997 and 2002 did reach the levee, and the 1997 flood

caused damage along 1,500 feet. 

As noted in the “Vegetation” and “Wildlife” sections of this document, floodplains can contain riparian

and wetland habitat that is diverse, rare, and required or heavily utilized by many wildlife species.

Because the habitat is rare, the species that require riparian habitat are also sometimes rare. Riparian

vegetation is also important to some species of fish, as it cools water temperatures, provides cover, and

supplies an important food resource in the form of insects falling from overhanging vegetation. Other

values associated with floodplains include their ability to mitigate bank erosion and flood stage; to filter

sediments, nutrients, and pollutants in runoff for both surface and groundwater; to provide recreational

and aesthetic pleasure for local residents and visitors. Floodplains are often the site where archeological

or historic resources are located. 

The private levee running from the river mouth upstream 950 feet on the west bank contains a low area

near the mouth (beach berm) that is periodically overtopped by high waves and tides. An isolated pool has

formed west of the levee as a result of these events and from seepage through the levee at high flows. In

essence, the levee has removed a portion of the Elwha River estuary from its natural hydraulic connection

with the river, with an unknown, but possibly important, impact to fishery habitat values of the floodplain

in this localized area. Estuary habitat is critical to a number of salmonid species, including the federally

threatened chinook salmon.

The federal levee (RM 0.1–1.6) on the east side of the river is much longer than the levee on the west side

and is set back approximately 370 to 2,400 feet from the river channel. The floodplain to the west of the

levee in this area is heavily forested. The lack of coarse sediment (sands and gravels) has resulted in a

more stable and simplified (i.e., less braiding) lower river reach than before the dams were built.

The WDFW chinook-rearing facilities (RM 2.8–3.0) are currently offered some protection by an access

road and a dike. The road would keep the rearing channel out of the existing 100-year floodplain, but a

200-foot-long low spot in the road would be overtopped during a 100-year flood. The dike begins just

north of this low spot and runs 1,400 feet parallel to the rearing channel before it ties back into the road

that ties into the industrial supply road. The dike, levee, and road alter river flow and flooding regime,

with possible moderate to major localized impacts on floodplain values on both the west and east sides. 

The remaining structures, wells, and bridges identified in Table 10 do not have flood protection measures

in place.

Cumulative Impacts

There has always been a danger of flooding by the Elwha River, even with both dams in place. Many

structures within the present 100-year floodplain could be inundated by the Elwha River since both the

Glines Canyon and Elwha Dams are operated in a natural flow or run-of-the-river mode. 
Impacts

96

Statistics on flood stage compiled since 1924 show that the flood stage in the Elwha and neighboring

rivers (Dungeness and Hoh) has increased over time. For example the predicted peak flow for 2002 is

nearly double that predicted for 1924 (Crain, pers. comm. 2003). Some of this trend may be related to

logging and other land clearing activities (primarily in the neighboring drainages), but it appears climate

is having a significant effect as well. 

Conclusion

The dams are currently operated in a natural flow or run-of-the-river mode, and homes, wells, and cultural

resources are periodically flooded. Degradation of the riverbed, caused by the trapping of coarse-grained

sediment behind the dams, has caused the flood stage from the Glines Canyon Dam to the mouth of the

river to be lowered in some places. This decrease in flood stage may provide a beneficial impact for some

property owners, but it has also resulted in less side channel or pool habitat, an adverse impact on the

river’s riparian ecosystem. The effect of the degraded riverbed would continue under this alternative,

although some cumulative increase in flood stage in the Elwha and neighboring rivers unrelated to park

management activities would likely offset this effect. Some existing flood control structures have minor

to moderate, localized impacts on the floodplain and values it offers fish, vegetation, wildlife, and

recreationists. No impairment to park resources from changes in flooding related to these structures would

occur under the no-action alternative.

Impacts of the Proposed Action

Analysis 

A recent re-analysis of the projected flood stage following removal of the dams incorporated information

from a moderate sized flood in January 2002, plus additional topographical information (such as pools

and riffle controls, and split flows), to refine the predictions of impacts for both leaving the dams in place

and removing them (USACE 2003). As noted for the no-action alternative, while dam removal would not

change in-stream volume or flow rate, it would result in the deposition and build up (aggradation) of

coarse-grained sediments (sand size and larger) downstream of the dams. As the riverbed materials were

restored, flood stages would change as well. This means some areas would be flooded more frequently,

and the 100-year flood, for example, would be higher than before the dams were removed. Generally,

more aggradation and more change in flood stages would occur in areas with gradual stream gradients

than in steeper sections of the river. 

Mitigation is geared to provide the same level of flood protection as residents or structures have now.

Below is a discussion of site-specific impacts based on modeling for the 100-year flood event, beginning

at the mouth of the river and going upstream (south) to the Glines Canyon Dam. Mitigation measures for

each of these impacts is described below and summarized in Table 11.

Impacts of Site-Specific Mitigation Measures. Lower Elwha Federal Flood Control Levee (RM 0.1–

1.6) — The levee was designed to be above the 200-year flood level, with a minimum of 3 feet of

freeboard (the height above the recorded high-water mark). Current estimates indicate locations along the

levee do not have 3 feet of freeboard, and dam removal and sedimentation would exacerbate this risk. In

addition, side channels or the mainstem migrating toward the levee would be more likely with sediments

returned to the river following dam removal. One historic side channel was reactivated in a 1997 flood

and damaged a 1,500-foot segment of the levee. This kind of damage from increased braiding and channel

migration is more likely following dam removal. 
Flooding: Impacts of the Proposed Action

97

Table 11. Structural Mitigation for Flooding Impacts

LOCATION AND STRUCTURE RM MITIGATION

Locally constructed, privately owned levee

(west bank)

0.0–0.1 Raise and armor levee; realign it along higher ground; or remove

it and raise affected homes.

Lower Elwha federal flood control levee (east

bank)

0.1–1.6 Raise entire levee an average of 3.3′; extend armoring up to

3,750′ south; extend the levee south and possibly north.

EPHA residence and well 1.4 Raise home, or obtain flowage easement.

Port Angeles industrial water supply channel 2.5–3.1 Raise 4,850′ of industrial supply road (Crown Z Road) by 4.5′.

City of Port Angeles Ranney well collector 2.8 Protect with ring dike levee. 

WDFW fish-rearing facility 2.8–3.0 Raise 4,850′ of industrial supply road (Crown Z Road) by 4.5′

(immediately west of facility) and add flap gate to entrance

channel culvert; raise wellheads at least 2.5′ to 2.8′; modify or

remove spur dike.

West bank residences 3.5 Ring dike; move on site and elevate until first floor is 4.5′ higher.

Alternatively, raze structure and abandon well. Pack well needs

to be raised.

East bank residence 3.5 Move on site and elevate until first floor is 4.5 feet higher.

DCWA well field and access road 3.5–3.7 If existing site maintained, raise well field, one well house, two

wellheads, and road grade. If alternative well field selected, raise

ground level.

Private well 7.9 Raise wellhead.

Residences 8.4 Move offsite (temporary structure), elevate in place, construct a

ring dike, or move to higher ground on site. 

River training dike 8.5 Raise dike 1.5′ and armor with riprap.

East bank residence 9.5 Raise or floodproof home if needed.

Elwha campground 11.0 Take no active flood protection measures because use is seasonal

and outside flood periods; flood warnings are provided and the

Elwha subdistrict is closed during floods; and the campground

has minimal development.

Elwha Ranger Station 12.0 Monitor/evaluate bank erosion threat and take corrective action

(e.g., bank stabilization, engineered logjams) as necessary.

Wellhead may need to be raised.

Altaire campground 12.5 Take no active flood protection measures because use is seasonal

and outside flood periods (campground closed from late summer

/ early fall to late spring / early summer); flood warnings are

provided and the Elwha subdistrict is closed during floods; and

the campground has minimal development.

Elwha Valley (Olympic Hot Springs) Road Raise about 1 mile of low elevation sections of the road in park

1′; raise 0.3 mile of road outside of park by 1′. Riprap select

sections of road.

Bridges: 

U.S. Highway 101

Elwha Valley Road

7.7

12.6

Add debris deflectors to the in-water piers as needed.

SOURCE: USACE 1995a and 2003.

To prevent overtopping or damage of the levee from a higher flood stage following dam removal, the

levee would be raised on average 3.3 feet, as compared to 2.5 feet proposed in the FEIS. Additional

armoring of the levee with a buried toe from the southern end northward for about 3,750 feet might also

be provided.

Overtopping is not the only problem dam removal is expected to cause for the levee. At least one and

perhaps several currently inactive side-channels in the vicinity of the upstream end of the levee and
Impacts

98

visible from the air could be reactivated during flooding after the dams were removed. Two known relict

channels at RM 2 are considered more likely to be reactivated. These channels outflank the upstream end

of the levee and could flood reservation lands more frequently and more severely when the dams were

gone. The levee is likely to be extended southward for this reason. As noted in the “Alternatives” chapter,

several alternative routes for such an extension are being considered, including a 1,600-foot levee along

the floodplain terrace, a 1,200-foot extension along an existing access road to the southern end of the

levee (traveling from northwest to southeast across the Halberg property), and a series of spur dikes and

flow deflectors. 

The northern portion of the reservation is protected by a beach berm that varies from 8 to 15 feet high.

When flood elevations exceed 10 feet now, some residences are susceptible to flooding. Modeling indicates that a 100-year flood would be at 13.0 feet and would inundate about 114 acres, and a 200-year

flood would be 14.2 feet and would inundate about 120 acres. The federal levee stops approximately 450

feet from the beach berm. At this time, two options for maintaining flood protection north of the levee are

being considered. Homes would either be raised by 1 foot, or the federal levee would be flood proofed or

extended north to tie into the beach berm. Extending the levee could include pumping facilities to remove

storm water, hatchery effluent, and possibly seawater breaches.

Locally Constructed, Privately Owned Levee (RM 0.0–0.3) — A levee to protect residences on the west

bank of the river extends from the river’s mouth 950 feet upstream to high ground at the toe of a large

bluff. Based on updated modeling about current conditions, the levee is overtopped by 50- to 100-year

floods at the upstream and downstream ends. Geotechnical inspection indicates that the levee is in poor

structural condition and is likely to fail by erosion or undermining in less than a 50-year flood (USACE

2003). Based on observations during recent moderately high flow events, it is estimated that the levee will

protect property west of it during a 25-year flood. Removing the dams is expected to increase the 25-year

flood level by an average of 3.7 feet. Available topography indicates the top of the berm varies in

elevation from 12 to 17 feet. The expected flood elevations during the 100-year flood following dam

removal would be between 13.5 and 18 feet. Three options are being considered to mitigate this impact:

(1) raise the levee, extend it a small distance, and armor it with riprap, (2) realign the levee to follow high

ground from the terminus of the county road to the beach berm, and (3) remove the levee and raise

individual structures. The latter two options would each restore the hydraulic connectivity between part of

the historic Elwha River estuary (now a pond and wetlands) and the river, which are now separated by the

levee. 

The first choice to raise the levee in place in order to maintain the existing 25-year flood level protection

would require filling directly on top of the existing levee centerline and protecting it by riprap. Despite

raising the levee, the protected area might still be vulnerable to flooding if the delta enlarged following

dam removal because the river would be able to flood back through a low spot on the beach berm (not

part of the levee), especially if the delta built up toward the strait. Extending the levee 150 feet to the

southwest along the beach berm or farther north toward the strait could provide additional protection. If

the levee was raised or extended, the hydraulic connection to the pond on the west and the river estuary

could be restored by building a channel and culvert with a flap gate through the levee. 

The second choice to realign the levee would use salvaged materials from the existing levee, which would

be removed. The new levee would follow high ground south of the existing pond/estuary, from the

terminus of the county road to the beach berm. Because the realigned levee would run close to several

homes, it would be particularly important to protect against seepage. Complete removal of the existing

levee would also hinder public access to the beach if alternate access was not provided by way of the

realigned structure. If the existing levee material was unsuitable for re-construction, material would have

to be hauled in. The levee realignment would cut off the local runoff drainage paths to the pond, and
Flooding: Impacts of the Proposed Action

99

culverts would need to be installed through the levee fill to provide drainage; the culverts would have to

be closed in the event of high tide or high river stage. Hydraulic, biologic, and geomorphic connectivity

between the estuary and the area landward of the levee would be restored.

The third choice would be to remove the levee and raise the elevation of the residences now protected by

the levee between 13 and 15 feet. It is estimated that under existing conditions the protected area could

flood to an elevation of 14 feet if the levee was overtopped during a 100-year flood. Following dam

removal, the 100-year flood elevation could increase to 16.5 feet. Homes would need to be raised to an

elevation of about 15 feet to provide the existing level of protection. Estimates indicate that 25 or fewer

homes would require raising. Removing the levee would restore the hydraulic, biologic, and geomorphic

connection between the estuary and the wetland landward of the levee. In addition, because the floodplain

in this area would be restored, residents on the east side of this same reach of river would have greater

flood protection than if the private levee remained. Removing the existing levee would hinder public

access to the beach. 

EPHA Residence and Well (RM 1.4) — A private residence located on the west overbank of the Elwha is

now approximately 2 feet below the 100-year flood elevation. Increased water elevations after dam

removal would result in more frequent flooding of the residence. New wells for the Elwha Place

Homeowners’ Association would be located above the future 100-year flood level.

City of Port Angeles Ranney Well Collector (RM 2.8) — At a minimum, the existing Ranney collector

would function as a backup supply during dam removal and would be the primary source of drinking

water during clean periods and when sediment levels drop over the long term. This facility consists of a

large concrete caisson, topped by a pumphouse, treatment building, and wellhead. The top of the caisson

is at 69.1 feet, and the existing 100-year flood elevation is 66.4 feet. Following dam removal, the 100-

year flood elevation is expected to increase 2.5 feet to 68.9 feet. This means the caisson would be at or

slightly above the 100-year flood and could be affected. The treatment building is at 67 feet and would be

flooded to depths exceeding 1.5 feet during the 100-year flood. 

The Ranney collector is near the planned industrial pre-treatment facility and the WDFW fish-rearing

channel, both of which might also require diking or other flood protection to operate during and following

dam removal. One option being considered is to construct a dike to ring the Ranney collector and be part

of flood protection for the other facilities in the area. The dike, constructed of sheet pile or concrete,

would encircle the Ranney well for health reasons. Some buried riprap would be incorporated for scour

protection. This action would likely require clearing alder trees in the southwest corner, and in-water (but

not in-river) work would be required to build the ring dike. The total length of the dike would be

approximately 540 feet. A ramp over the wall would be built to allow access to protected facilities. The

ring dike would be located in the floodplain out of the 100-year floodway, so it would not significantly

impact the flood regime of adjacent properties. 

WDFW Fish-Rearing Facility and Ranney Well Collector (RM 2.8–3.1) — As previously noted, the

WDFW rearing facility for chinook salmon consists of a rearing channel, access road, inlet and outlet

works, fish trap, two overflow channels, three facility support buildings, and two well fields north and

west of the facility. The wells, which would be required during and following dam removal to maintain

clean water for the rearing facility, would be overtopped and contaminated by surface flows following

dam removal. To continue to provide current levels of flood protection, four wellheads would need to be

raised by 2.5 to 2.8 feet, the level the 100-year flood is predicted to increase in this vicinity following dam

removal. 
Impacts

100

The rearing facilities are in the 100-year floodplain, except for the three support buildings, which are east

of the channel on a high bench and just out of the floodplain. The access road, which is raised and serves

as a dike, offers some protection. The road/dike, which runs 1,660 feet north before it crosses the rearing

channel at its northern end and ties into the access road for the existing industrial water intake channel,

keeps the rearing channel out of the existing 100-year floodplain for the most part. However, it has a 200-

foot-long low spot that would be overtopped under existing conditions. 

Raising the access road/dike in its present location along its entire length would not prevent flooding

during a 100-year flood following dam removal unless the industrial water supply road was also raised

and tied into high ground. Control structures would need to be added to the industrial water supply

channel to stop backwater flooding, and the existing low section of the road/dike would need to be filled

and raised. The roads would need to be raised about 4.5 feet. This would be enough to protect these

facilities, accounting for uncertainty in the analyses. 

The Elwha River splits at the location of the rearing channel. If the mainstem of the river re-occupied the

right side channel, additional scour protection for the rearing channel and the Ranney well collector

would be required. Because it took many years for the river to degrade and abandon this channel, it is

likely that the river either would stay in its current path to the west of the island that splits its flow, or

would take many years to aggrade and reoccupy its former channel (USACE 2003). Therefore no

additional strengthening of the road/dike to withstand this degree of scour is planned other than

emergency actions as needed.

Port Angeles Industrial Water Supply Channel (RM 2.5–3.1) — The current industrial water supply intake

is immediately upstream of a rock diversion structure at RM 3.5. The intake supplies a 1,000-foot-long

tunnel that empties into the 2,000-foot-long industrial water supply channel, which is directly east of the

WDFW fish-rearing channel. Water from the industrial water supply channel flows through control works

into a pipeline and then via gravity flow to the NPI mill in Port Angeles. The industrial supply road spurs

off Elwha River Road to the intake facility, as well as to the Ranney collector and industrial supply

channel (see URS 2003a, figure 2). About 2,400 feet of this road runs parallel to the road/dike, protecting

the rearing channel as discussed above. This road segment provides additional flood protection for the

industrial supply channel and the Elwha water treatment plant site. To the south of the water supply

channel, the road is in the 5- to 10-year floodplain. The 100-year flood level would overtop the road in

this area by 5.5 feet. North of the water supply channel, the road extends from the pipeline headworks and

runs north and east parallel to the pipeline. This piece of the road is in the floodplain for 1,700 feet and is

overtopped by a 10- to 25-year flood. Dam removal would increase the frequency of flooding on the

southernmost segment to once every 2 to 5 years on average. In the middle segment (water supply

channel), 100-year flood stages would increase an average of 2.6 feet, just enough to overtop into the

supply channel in several locations. Flooding frequency on the northern segment of the road (called the

pipeline road) would increase to once every 2 to 5 years. 

A new control weir and intake facility are planned about 225 feet upstream from their current location.

The intake facility would be designed to remain functional during passage of the 100-year flood by

establishing the operating deck above the corresponding river stage, and by providing control gates at the

tunnel outlets to regulate downstream water levels within the fish screen structure.

The industrial supply road (the Crown Z Road) would be raised 4.5 feet across its flood-prone length

(4,850 feet) to mitigate for the impacts of dam removal. The 750-foot portion of road between the

diversion dam and the supply road bridge across the southern overflow channel, and 1,300 feet of the

west side of the pipeline road embankment would be armored with riprap. 
Flooding: Impacts of the Proposed Action

101

West Bank Residences (near RM 3.5) — Two residences on the west bank of the river, now 2.7 to 5.7 feet

below the 100-year flood elevation, are now flooded at 2- to 25-year frequencies. Riverbed aggradation

following dam removal would increase the 100-year water surface elevation an estimated 2.5 feet and the

frequency at which these homes are flooded to 1 to 5 years. Protecting the residences from flooding could

be achieved with a ring dike. Alternatively, the structures could be moved on site, elevated, or removed

completely.

East Bank Residence (near RM 357) — A residence on the east bank of the river near the DCWA wells is

approximately 2 to 4 feet below the 100-year flood level and currently floods at 10- to 15-year

frequencies. After dam removal, flooding would increase to an estimated 1- to 2-year frequency, with a

2.5-foot increase in the 100-year flood water elevation. Moving the structure on site and raising it so the

first floor would be 4.5 feet above flood elevation would protect it. 

Existing DCWA Well Field and Access Road (RM 3.7) — Three wells maintained by the Dry Creek Water

Association are located on the east bank of the Elwha River. The floor elevation of the well house is at the

20- to 50-year flood level; it could be flooded more frequently with higher water elevations as a result of

dam removal. The access road to the wells, flooded now at a 10-year flood frequency, also would flood

more often. The highest well is now above the 100-year flood elevation, but due to sediment aggradation

after dam removal, it would be flooded by a 100-year flood. As noted in the “Alternatives” chapter, the

Dry Creek Water Association may move its well field to the west side of the river. If the association

maintained its current well field, the wells and access road to them could both be flooded more frequently

following dam removal; consequently, the road grade, well house, and one exterior wellhead would need

to be raised to provide the same level of flood protection as the system has now. 

East Bank Private Well (RM 7.9) — A private well near the confluence of the Little River and Elwha

River, lies 2 to 3 feet below the current 100-year flood elevation. Sediment aggradation near the wellhead

is expected to be 2.4 feet following dam removal, causing more frequent flooding with higher water

elevations. The wellhead would need to be raised. 

East Bank Residences (near RM 8.4) — Three residences on the east bank of the river, 3 to 7 feet below

the 100-year flood level, are flooded on a 7- to 30-year frequency. These structures would flood more

often and with higher water elevations with dam removal. Floodproofing the structures would require

elevating them in place, constructing a ring dike, or moving them to higher ground.

River Training Dike (RM 8.5) — A 300-foot training dike near RM 8.5 does not offer any flood control

protection but does redirect high-velocity flows away from the Elwha Valley Road (Olympic Hot Springs

Road) embankment. It is now flooded by a 25-year flood and would be flooded more often with dam

removal. To be above the flood level, it would need to be raised 1.5 feet and armored with riprap.

East Bank Residence (near RM 9.5) — Located just downstream from the park boundary on the east bank

of the Elwha River, this structure is currently above the 200-year floodplain and would be above the 100-

year floodplain after dam removal. However, the resident reports active bank erosion is endangering his

property. Increased river stages (average of 0.5 feet) could increase the rate of erosion. 

Elwha Campground (RM 11.0) — The Elwha campground lies below the 100-year flood level and

currently floods during a less than 5-year flood level. The removal of the dams could increase water

surface elevation up to 0.5 feet, which could cause more frequent flooding. No active flood protection

measures would be taken because use is seasonal and outside flood periods; flood warnings are provided

and the Elwha subdistrict is closed during floods; and the campground has minimal development.
Impacts

102

Elwha Ranger Station (RM 12.0) — The Elwha Ranger Station structures are approximately 2 feet above

the 100-year flood elevation. Dam removal would increase water surface elevation of up to 0.5 feet, and

the structures would still be above the 100-year flood elevation. Increased bank erosion could pose a

threat to the ranger station following dam removal. If needed, stabilizing the bank or installing engineered

logjams would provide flood protection. 

Altaire Campground (RM 12.5) — The Altaire campground is partially inundated during annual floods

and could flood by as much as 8 feet during a 100-year event. Flooding would increase by about 0.5 feet

with removal of the Glines Canyon Dam. No active flood protection measures would be taken, as

described for the Elwha campground, because use is seasonal and outside flood periods (campground is

closed from late summer / early fall to late spring / early summer); flood warnings are provided and the

Elwha subdistrict is closed during floods; and the campground has minimal development.

Elwha Valley Road (Olympic Hot Springs Road) — Elwha Valley Road parallels the river on its east bank

from U.S. Highway 101 to the Glines Canyon Dam. Three sections of the road are overtopped by 5- to

10-year flood levels. Removing the dams would increase the frequency that flood levels would close or

damage the road. The highly flood-prone areas occur between RM 8.1 and 8.4 (downstream of the

training dike), between RM 9.8 and 10.2 (just upstream of the park entrance), and between RM 10.8 and

11.7 (the Elwha campground to the ranger station). Flood depths over the road during a 10-year event can

approach 2.5 feet at RM 11.1. The impacts from dam removal at these locations would be relatively minor

compared to existing conditions, and the following measures would provide existing levels of protection

— raise about 1.0 mile of low-elevation road sections within the park, raise 0.3–0.6 mile of road outside

the park, and armor select sections of the road. These actions would not alleviate all future flood risk, but

would reduce the severity of floods.

Bridges — After dam removal, water flow under four bridges — the Elwha River Road near the fishrearing facility, Highway 112 near RM 3.3, U.S. 101 near RM 7.7, and the Elwha Valley Road near the

Altaire campground near RM 12.6 — would not be substantially affected by higher floodwater elevations.

Increased volumes of woody debris floating down the river could affect the in-water piers of the U.S. 101

and Altaire campground bridges.

Impacts on the Natural Floodplain. For the most part mitigation measures described above and

presented in Table 11 would provide the same level of protection as these structures and facilities have

now, so there would be no impact to them resulting from higher flood stages or frequency after dam

removal. In other words, structures would be able to withstand floods to the extent they can now. The

only exceptions might be facilities inside Olympic National Park (e.g., the Altaire and Elwha

campgrounds, and the Elwha Ranger Station). 

However, the implementation of these mitigations could have temporary impacts to river flows and

possibly to the floodplain itself. For example, the construction of pipelines that cross the river from the

DCWA alternative well field site would obstruct flows during the construction period. Some flood mitigation measures would also have long-term effects on the natural floodplain, as this is the very function

each serves. Examples of proposed actions in this SEIS that could affect the natural floodplain include

providing flood protection for the DCWA alternative well field and extending the federal levee and the

private levee at the river mouth. 

The floodplain in the vicinity of the DCWA alternative well field, the proposed control weir, and the

surface water intake is approximately 1,000 feet wide. On the east bank of the river between the Highway

112 bridge (RM 3.3) and the Elwha River Road bridge (RM 3.1), the floodplain is confined to a narrow
Flooding: Impacts of the Proposed Action

103

strip between the river and steep valley walls except in the vicinity of the access road to the existing

DCWA well field (RM 3.7). 

Between the alternative DCWA well field area and the river are several side channels that begin to be

inundated during moderate flow increases. Hydraulic modeling indicates that at the 2-year flood level

(14,470 cfs) the majority of these side channels would flow with river water. The alternative DCWA well

field location is on a field (terrace) that is inundated during large floods, such as a 10- to 25-year flood

(27,850 cfs and 33,730 cfs, respectively). Raising the elevation of the entire well field to protect any

infrastructure from the 100-year flood would somewhat reduce the size of the 100-year floodplain. However, hydraulic modeling indicates that the difference in flood stage would be negligible (less than ±0.2

feet) for all flood flows because the area is small relative to the total floodplain area for any given flood

between the 2-year and 100-year floods, and the area is at the far end of the floodplain. Raising the

ground elevations to protect the DCWA wells at this location would protect the new well area, but

protection would not extend upstream or downstream. Even though the direct effects on the floodplain

would be localized, this action would involve moving significant amounts of earth into place, which could

fill or partially fill three large interconnected water-filled gravel pits that are directly east of the well field

and that may have some wetland function.

The lower Elwha federal flood control levee on the east side of the floodplain (RM 0.1–1.6) confines the

eastward migration of the river. Constructed in 1988, the levee was built to withstand a 200-year flood

and to provide flood protection for approximately 300 acres in the lower Elwha River floodplain. Based

on empirical relationships and historical evidence from aerial photographs, the levee was generally

located beyond the limits of the river meander-belt width. However, the FEIS indicated that the levee

could fail during floods if the main river channel migrated over to and against the levee, because it was

not built to withstand the relatively high velocities of the main river channel (USACE 1987). In addition,

as noted above, side channels could erode the levee as well. At its northern end, the area that is

unprotected by the levee includes a narrow dirt roadway, a weedy band east of the levee that borders the

tribal hatchery outfall, and about 450 feet of beach cobbles covered by driftwood extending to the Strait

of Juan de Fuca. The southern end of the levee terminates near the Halberg property, which is primarily

neglected pasture containing a variety of grasses, and a mix of conifer and hardwood species typical of

lower lying forests in the area. Except for overflow during a 200-year flood, this area is outside the

floodplain. Because it is outside the current meander belt, extending the federal levee to the north or

south, or building it up and therefore widening it at its base (on the east and west sides) would probably

not result in greater than moderate additional impacts over those described for the no-action alternative. 

Lengthening the private levee near the river mouth could continue existing impacts to the floodplain and

hydraulic connectivity between the Elwha River and an adjacent tidal wetland. Removing the levee and

raising individual residences could help restore some of this connectivity and the natural floodplain

dynamics in this area. 

Relocating intake facilities would change the surface water elevations and the floodplain at their present

location (RM 3.5) and at the location of the new facility (225 feet upstream). The floodplain in the area of

the proposed new facility is wide, but the eastern side is constrained by cliffs, similar to the DCWA well

field. The floodplain would be altered in that the western end would be filled constantly rather than just at

flood stage. This would be an adverse change, but because it is localized, the impact would be no more

than minor. Removing the rock diversion structure downstream would result in benefits to the floodplain

function, both ecologically and as a protective space for residents or structures in the vicinity. Again,

because the extent of filling behind this dam is localized and of smaller scale, benefits would be minor.
Impacts

104

The remaining flood control mitigation measures described above would have little or no impact to the

floodplain compared to the no-action alternative. This is because they would maintain flooding frequency

at their current levels. 

Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative impacts beyond those described above for the no-action alternative are expected.

Conclusion

All structures and facilities would be protected from any impact associated with dam removal and

increased aggradation of riverbed sediments through the use of mitigation measures. However, cumulative increases in flood stage unrelated to dam removal or other NPS activities appear to be an ongoing

trend. A re-analysis of the potential for flooding has resulted in changes in some of the proposed

mitigation measures. The placing of flood control measures would have minor adverse impacts on the

natural floodplain over the long term, in particular along the federal levee. No impairment to park

resources would occur from implementing the flood control actions described in this alternative.

Surface Water

Summary of Regulations and Policies

The Clean Water Act controls discharge to waterways and the dredge and fill of wetlands. The permits

required to discharge to waterways are obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology (NPDES

permit), and to dredge and fill wetlands, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, section 404 permit).

The Safe Drinking Water Act controls requirements and standards for public drinking water supplies.

The Washington Department of Ecology has established water quality standards for surface waters

consistent with public health and enjoyment, and the propagation and protection of fish, shellfish, and

wildlife (WAC 173-201A). The Department of Ecology also controls water withdrawals by the issuance

of water rights for the state.

The Elwha Act provides for the protection of existing quality and availability of water from the Elwha

River for municipal and industrial uses from possible adverse impacts of dam removal.

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

The same methods as described in the FEIS for determining the effectiveness of water quality mitigation

measures in reducing turbidity, the amount of chemicals and treatment residuals, the length of time

treatment would be required, and all other facets of dam removal were used to assess the new set of

mitigation measures described in this SEIS. 

Qualitative information, or quantitative information from similar projects (on order of magnitude), was

used to assess impacts of construction activities and specific operations of the pre-treatment and other

facilities affecting surface water. The relative magnitude of impacts is defined by the following terms:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection.
Surface Water: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

105

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable.

Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent.

Major — The impact would be severe.

An impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it would have a major

adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant planning documents.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

Discharge. Since the dams are operated in run-of-the-river mode, river flows are little different from predam conditions.

Water Quality. Lake Mills and Lake Aldwell, the reservoirs created by the Elwha and Glines Canyon

Dams, act as large settling basins, removing all of the coarse sediment and some of the fine sediment that

is transported from upstream. Consequently, turbidity peaks are reduced downstream of the dams, a minor

to moderate beneficial impact on water quality. However, the water remains turbid longer than it does

upstream, as Table 12 illustrates.

Table 12. Elwha River Turbidity Measurements Upstream and Downstream

of the Dams during a Storm 

DATE

NTUS

UPSTREAM OF LAKE MILLS*

NTUS

DOWNSTREAM OF BOTH DAMS**

02/01/95 570.0 125.0

02/02/95 200.0 148.0

02/03/95 75.0 136.0

02/04/95 15.0 119.0

02/05/95 10.0 82.9

02/06/95 7.0 68.7

02/07/95 7.0 50.9

02/08/95 7.0 68.7

02/09/95 6.3 39.3

02/10/95 6.5 39.7

02/11/95 4.8 34.4

02/12/95 3.6 33.6

02/13/95 2.4 28.2

02/14/95 2.6 26.4

0215/95 2.1 28.0

02/16/95 1.6 22.5

02/17/95 12.6 19.7

* New USGS gauging station 12044900.

** Port Angeles monitoring program.
Impacts

106

The dams have also prevented silt and clay, which carries iron and/or manganese on the particle surfaces

and in the pore spaces between the particles, from washing through the system. The iron and manganese

particles settle out due to their density and concentrate in the silt and clay deposits in each reservoir

lakebed, where conditions are right to cause the particulates to partially dissolve. Normally, this material

would wash out to sea in low concentrations, affecting neither human users nor aquatic life. The storage

of dissolved metals in lakebed sediments has therefore had a negligible to minor impact on water quality

(see Table 13). 

Table 13. Water Quality Impact Indicators

IMPACT INDICATOR NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

DO (% saturation) 95–110

Total Suspended Solids (fines) (mg/L) 1–1,500

Turbidity (NTU) 1–2,800+

Total Iron (μg/L) 20–2,300

Total Manganese (μg/L) 4–210

pH 6.7–10

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 0–10

SOURCE: USGS water quality data and NPI

The dams have prevented particulate organic plant material from flowing downstream because it settles in

Lake Mills and Lake Aldwell. Also, the absence of salmonid fish carcasses, which supply carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, has resulted in a reduction of these nutrients. Low levels of organic matter generally

limit aquatic invertebrate diversity and production in the river below the reservoirs (FERC 1993).

The reservoirs have also affected downstream water temperatures, which are 4°C–8°C higher (McHenry

2002) than normal during some parts of the late summer and early fall (FERC 1993). The increased

temperature is a result of surface releases of reservoir water, which has warmed over the summer.

Increases in disease and mortality in fish populations in the lower river have been correlated with and are

major adverse impacts of these increased temperatures. 

Under the no-action alternative silt and clay-sized material with traces of iron and manganese would

continue to build up behind the dams, and temperatures downstream would continue to be higher than

under pre-dam conditions for several months of the year. Water quality downstream of the dams would

continue to be more turbid following high-flow events than under pre-dam conditions, although

withdrawals would likely increase as the population grows. Episodes of high turbidity during floods or

upstream landslides would continue to occur periodically. Within several hundred years, the reservoirs

would fill with sediment, resulting in a return to natural conditions including more turbid water and

higher concentrations of iron and manganese downstream.

Water Quality Treatment. Some surface water users treat water now. Nippon Paper Industries uses

settling channels, flocculants, and/or filtering to prevent adverse impacts from turbidity. The Lower

Elwha Klallam tribal fish hatchery uses groundwater and a shallow infiltration gallery to help maintain a

less turbid supply.

The City of Port Angeles currently uses a Ranney well and chlorination to treat municipal water.

Turbidity in the Ranney well water is lower than in the river because alluvial sands and gravels filter out a

large portion of particulate matter in the river. High turbidity in the river is therefore not usually reflected

in water collected from the Ranney well. However, if the river rises quickly following a prolonged
Surface Water: Background Information on Impacts of Dam Removal

107

drought, soil around the base of the Ranney collector caisson dries and cracks, allowing surface water to

bypass the filtration provided by the riverbed. During these “short-out” periods, turbidity in the Port

Angeles municipal supply can be quite high. The 1994 measured mean turbidity of 0.08 NTU normally

does not exceed drinking water standards of 1.0 NTU. The maximum turbidity detected in the city’s well

from 1983 to 1993 was 4.8 NTUs. 

The armoring of the riverbed with coarse cobbles and gravel, along with the removal of sand and fines,

has contributed to an increased hydraulic connection between the river and the underlying aquifer. The

Port Angeles Ranney collector, and other high-yield wells, depend on the induced recharge from the river

to maintain high yields. The quality of water from the collector has also been found to be more closely

connected to that in the river than is appropriate for a true groundwater source. As noted in the

“Alternatives” chapter, water collected by the Ranney well has been reclassified as groundwater under the

influence of surface water. This means the water must be treated as if it came from a surface source, with

additional disinfection and/or filtration requirements aimed at removing Giardia cysts, Cryotosporidium,

and viruses to meet EPA and state health department requirements. Under the no-action alternative the

city would need to add to its current chlorination to comply with regulations regarding the new status of

water from its Ranney collector.

Iron was detected above maximum contaminant levels twice in the Port Angeles Ranney well samples

taken from 1983 to 1993. Although the mean iron concentration of 200 μg/L was below state drinking

water standards of 300 μg/L, the maximum concentration detected was 1,000 μg/L. 

Cumulative Impacts

As noted in the “Affected Environment,” water in the Elwha River is of very high quality. The reservoirs

further improve quality by acting as large settling basins, removing all coarse sediment and some fine

sediment transported from upstream. Adverse cumulative impacts to water quality in the Elwha River

basin include natural factors, such as sedimentation from landslides.

Conclusion

The reservoirs have moderately reduced turbidity, have trapped iron and manganese particles, and have

increased temperatures downstream of the dams. These conditions would continue under the no-action

alternative. Treatment of the Port Angeles municipal water would change to comply with standards

related to the reclassification of its water source as “under the influence of surface water.” While the

increase in temperature has had a particularly major adverse impact on water quality in the Elwha River,

this impact does not constitute an impairment of Olympic National Park resources or values.

Background Information on Impacts of Dam Removal

The following information is from the Implementation FEIS. It is used as background material only to

help make this a stand-alone document. As noted in other sections of this document, the decision to

remove the dams has already been made and formalized in a “Record of Decision.”

The primary impacts to surface water would be the increase in concentrations of total suspended and

dissolved solids, measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per million (ppm), released from the

reservoirs by the processes of erosion and transport downstream. The timing and rate of removal of the

dams and the river discharge would have the greatest influence on downstream total suspended and total

dissolved solids concentrations. Increases in both short- and long-term concentrations would result from
Impacts

108

dam removal, although short-term concentrations would be several orders of magnitude higher. In the

short term (three to five years after dam removal started), while peak suspended sediment levels in the

river could still occur occasionally (as much as seven times current peak levels), mitigation would ensure

that surface water users would continue to receive water meeting current standards.

Turbidity levels would be very high during dam removal and would have major adverse impacts to water

quality, as well as to users if proposed water quality mitigation measures were not integrated into the

project design. However, since municipal and industrial supplies of water must be protected against

adverse impacts of dam removal, measures to ensure that standards would not be exceeded were built into

the dam removal alternative. There would, therefore, be no impact to surface water industrial and

municipal users from dam removal. In the long term, the water quality protection facilities would be left

in place for city use in the future. 

As noted in the “Alternatives” chapter, additional testing of reservoir sediments has shown that some fine

materials might settle out in the coarse riverbed material, decreasing infiltration into the alluvial aquifer.

A decrease in yield, or blinding, particularly for the Port Angeles Ranney collector, could result.

Water quality might also be degraded by the release of dissolved iron or manganese from lakebed sediments. Analyses of reservoir bottom sediment samples (collected in March 1995) indicate these metals

are in the lakebed sediment pore water (i.e., spaces between sediment grains) in high concentrations. The

actual concentration of dissolved iron and manganese in waters released during and immediately

following dam removal would be a function of the inflow volume, prevailing chemical conditions in the

water, and erosion rate. Short-term impacts from the release of iron or manganese would be major adverse

effects to water quality. In the long-term, these impacts would be minor. 

A sufficient volume of these dissolved minerals could be released over the short term, which would

aesthetically and/or physically affect downstream water users. Potential effects are bad tasting and tinted

drinking water, iron and manganese staining, and precipitation plugging water supply plumbing. Again,

because of required mitigation, users would experience no impact to their water quality from dam

removal. Current and predicted measurements for the impact indicators of concern without mitigation

measures are shown for each alternative in the following tables. Table 14 lists the short-term impacts to

water quality for up to five years following dam removal with no mitigation. 

Table 14. Short-term, Unmitigated Water Quality Impacts from Dam Removal

IMPACT INDICATOR 

UP TO FIVE YEARS

FOLLOWING DAM REMOVAL NO ACTION

Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation) 90%–100% 95%–110%

Peak Total Suspended Solids

Concentration (fines only) (ppm)

20,000–40,000* 5,500

Average Total Suspended Solids

Concentration (fines only) (ppm)

880–11,000* 7

Peak Turbidity (NTU) 6,000–11,000* 2,000–3,000

Average Turbidity (NTU) 440–530 8

Total Iron (μg/L) 30,000–50,000* 20–2,300

Total Manganese (μg/L) 500–10,000* 4–210

Maximum Daily Temperature (oC) 15–19 19

pH 5–9 6.7–10

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 100–1000 0–10

* Concentrations are expected to vary with removal activity and flow; these numbers represent maximum anticipated ranges of

short duration (1–3 days) as lakebed sediments are eroded.
Surface Water: Impacts of the Proposed Action

109

Table 15 lists the unmitigated long-term impacts that would result from the return of the natural upstream

sediment supply. When river flows are lower than 1,000 cfs, suspended sediment concentrations are

expected to exceed 1,000 ppm between 140 to 170 days during dam removal. Suspended sediment

concentrations are expected to exceed 5,000 ppm between 27 to 42 days, and to exceed 10,000 ppm

between 4 and 8 days when the river flows are less than 1,000 cfs.

Table 15. Long-term, Unmitigated Water Quality Impacts from Dam Removal 

(natural ambient conditions)

IMPACT INDICATOR 

BEGINNING TWO TO FIVE YEARS

FOLLOWING DAM REMOVAL NO ACTION

Dissolved Oxygen (% saturation) 95%–110% 95%–110%

Peak Total Suspended Solids

Concentration (fines only) (ppm)

5,800* 5,500*

Average Suspended Solids

Concentration (fines only) (ppm)

22 7

Peak Turbidity (NTU) 2,000–3,000 2,000–3,000

Average Turbidity (NTU) 21 8

Total Iron (μg/L) 10–5,000 20–2,300

Total Manganese (μg/L) 10–700 4–210

Maximum Daily Temperature (oC) 15–17 19

pH 6.8–8.5 6.7–10

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 10–200 0–10

* Concentrations are expected to vary with removal activity and streamflow; these numbers represent maximum anticipated

ranges of short duration (1–3 days) as lakebed sediments are eroded.

Impacts of the Proposed Action

Analysis

Water Quality Mitigation. Water quality mitigation measures proposed as part of the SEIS are described

in Table 16. In some cases, they are similar to those in the FEIS (such as for industrial treatment, or for

maintaining high quality water for the tribal hatchery), and in others, they are very different (such as for

both supply and treatment of Port Angeles municipal water). 

Table 16. Mitigation Measures Included in the Proposed Action 

SURFACE WATER USER MITIGATION MEASURE

Industrial — NPI Mill Surface supply continues.

Flocculation and sedimentation treatment.

WDFW Fish-Rearing Facility Surface supply continues with water treatment at the Elwha

water treatment plant during dam removal erosion period.

Flocculation and sedimentation treatment.

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal Fish Hatchery Relocate on the Halberg property (preferred alternative),

supply with surface water and on-site wells; or expand and

upgrade at existing site, supply with surface water, and add

two or more new wells for dilution when needed.

Port Angeles Municipal Supply Surface supply during high turbidity dam removal period,

Ranney well otherwise; use of surface water for extra capacity

or to supplement the Ranney well supply possible.

Actiflo, filtration, and disinfection treatment plant.
Impacts

110

Industrial Water Treatment — As noted in the “Alternatives” chapter, the WDFW fish-rearing facility

would remain open during dam removal, and both it and the industrial water treatment facility (the Elwha

water treatment plant) would be supplied with surface water collected by means of a diversion and intake

facility. After solids were removed, this same supply would be used for the tribal hatchery, and after

treatment water would feed into the Port Angeles water treatment plant. The existing rock diversion

structure would be removed and replaced with one able to pass both fish and sediment. 

Water for these users would be provided via a surface diversion and an intake facility, as described in the

“Alternatives” chapter. It would be treated through a conventional treatment process consisting of

chemical addition, flocculation, and sedimentation. The chemicals added would include aluminum sulfate

(alum), caustic soda, and small quantities of a polymer (polyacrylamide or PAM) to increase the

efficiency of the coagulation process. Three clarifiers are proposed with related chemical storage and

feed, rapid mixing, and sludge pumping. The treated water leaving the clarifiers would flow to a splitting

structure for distribution to the Port Angeles municipal water treatment facility, Nippon Paper Industries,

the WDFW fish-rearing channel, and the tribal fish hatchery. As with the proposed action in the FEIS, the

Elwha water treatment plant would be directly adjacent to the rearing channel (see the “Elwha Water

Treatment Plant” map). The expected effectiveness of treatment is shown in Table 17 below.

Table 17. Water Quality Before and Following Industrial Treatment — Elwha Water

Treatment Plant

(critical impact indicators, industrial diversion water)

IMPACT INDICATOR

DURING DAM REMOVAL

(RIVER WATER)

LONG TERM

(RIVER WATER)

WITH MITIGATION

(AFTER TREATMENT)

Peak Turbidity (NTU) 6,000–11,000 2,000–3,000 ≤20–100

Average Turbidity (NTU) 440–530 21 <20

Total Iron (μg/L) 30–50 0.010–5 ≤4

Total Manganese (μg/L) 0.5–10 0.010–0.7 ≤1.5

pH 5–9 6.5–8.5 6.5–7.5

NOTE: The facility is designed to limit turbidity to 20 NTUs or less Short-term spikes above 20 NTUs (duration limited to a few

hours) might be infrequently experienced as a result of rapid changes in river turbidity.

An estimated 46 tons per day of residual coagulated solids would be produced on average, although on a

peak turbidity day as much as 1,786 tons per day would result from treatment for industrial and fisheries

purposes. Because of this high volume, the only feasible option for disposal of these solids is to return

them to the river during dam removal and the subsequent three to five year sediment erosion period when

turbidities in the river would already be very high. 

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal Fish Hatchery and WDFW Fish-Rearing Channel — The tribal hatchery and

WDFW rearing channel would be supplied by a combination of water from the Elwha water treatment

plant and groundwater. 

Two options are being considered for the tribal hatchery — improving the existing facility or building a

new one farther south and east on the Halberg property (which is preferred at this time). If the tribal

hatchery remained in its current location, construction of a pumping station with redundancy and

emergency backup power could be part of the proposed action to help direct outflow following

aggradation associated with dam removal. 
Surface Water: Impacts of the Proposed Action

111

The pipeline to the hatchery (regardless of location) from the Elwha water treatment plant during high

turbidity periods during and following dam removal (and from the Elwha surface water intake when

sediments had stabilized) would be along the industrial water pipeline route to the reservation boundary.

From the reservation boundary the pipeline would follow the chosen route for the extension of the federal

levee and would continue along the existing levee directly to the hatchery. 

Effluent from the Halberg hatchery site would be discharged into the Elwha River by way of a 400-foot

channel. Total instantaneous discharge at maximum biomass loadings at the hatchery would be 20.7 mgd.

Relocating the hatchery to the Halberg site would reduce flooding impacts currently experienced because

hatchery effluent would be re-routed during high-water events. Hatchery effluent could be stripped of

hatchery-origin organic materials so as to not adversely impact water quality in the Elwha River.

Port Angeles Municipal Supply — As noted in the “Purpose and Need” and “Alternatives” chapters of this

SEIS, concerns over the possible reduction in yield to the city’s existing and proposed second Ranney

collector during dam removal is one of the reasons a surface supply is now the preferred alternative. The

proposed action in this SEIS includes a full-scale permanent surface water treatment plant, instead of a

temporary plant proposed in the FEIS. A conceptual design of the Port Angeles water treatment plant is

discussed in more detail in the “Alternatives” chapter. The facility would not be near the city’s existing

Ranney well (as it is in the FEIS), but several miles away at the city’s existing landfill staging area, where

it would occupy about 5 acres. 

A study evaluating treatment options indicated the coagulation and sedimentation process using Actiflo,

filtration, and disinfection would meet federal and state surface water treatment standards, even for

surface water (URS 2002c). The plant would treat water from the Ranney collector, and if needed from

the Elwha surface water intake, during and following dam removal. 

Because the majority of water used in the process would already be filtered through the Ranney collector

or treated at the Elwha water treatment plant, the volume of sludge or solids produced would be far less

than in the industrial treatment process, ranging from 2,786 dry pounds/day during average flow to 4,680

dry pounds/day at peak flow rates (URS 2003h). At average flow rates, this translates to about 1,241

cubic yards of material composed of 20% solids each year. Dried sludge from the drying beds would be

combined with composted wastewater biosolids or hauled to a landfill from the city’s proposed solid

waste transfer station. 

Water Quality Monitoring — A sediment management monitoring plan administered by the National Park

Service would include sampling for critical and basic water quality parameters. Sampling sites include the

new station above Lake Mills (to be relocated to Goblins Gate), the historic McDonald’s bridge gage, and

a new site to be established just below the Elwha Dam. Sampling parameters and frequency would ensure

adequate data coverage of water quality impacts before and after dam removal. Information gathered from

the sites would be used to help determine the dosing frequency of flocculent at the treatment facility and

other treatment parameters during dam removal.

The established historic baseline from the McDonald bridge station would be used for comparison during

the deconstruction period. After the dams were removed, data from the new upper station (at Goblins

Gate) would be compared with data from the new lower station below the Elwha Dam site to determine

dam removal impacts to water quality and how to reestablish natural conditions.

Construction Impacts — All mitigation measures discussed in this SEIS, with the exception of the Port

Angeles water treatment plant and Morse Creek fish-holding ponds, would be built along the banks or
Impacts

112

very near the Elwha River. The majority of construction and construction-related impacts would occur

from RM 3.7 to RM 2.8. In this 0.9-stretch, from south to north, the following projects would take place 

(1) providing flood protection in the vicinity of RM 3.5–3.7 for the existing DCWA well field or for

an alternative well field and access road on the opposite bank, a pipeline along one of five routes

to distribute water from the alternative DCWA well field, or a pipeline to connect the association

to the city’s municipal distribution system 

(2) replacing the existing rock diversion structure with a new diversion and intake structure between

RM 3.5 and 3.6 

(3) raising and strengthening roads and an in-river dike to allow access to the Elwha water treatment

plant, Ranney collector, and WDFW fish-rearing channel between RM 3.3 and 2.8 

(4) building a ring dike around at least the Ranney collector and possibly more at RM 3.0 

(5) constructing the Elwha water treatment plant at RM 2.8–3.0 

(6) raising and strengthening an in-river training dike paralleling the rearing channel 

Downstream from this stretch of river the following projects would take place: 

(1) constructing a new tribal hatchery, wastewater pumping station, and distribution pipeline at RM

2.0 

(2) possibly raising and extending the federal levee on the east side of the floodplain both north and

south from RM 0.1 to RM 1.6

(3) raising or removing a private levee on the opposite side of the river between RM 0.0 and RM 0.1

To the extent possible, construction would take place in the two dry seasons before dam removal began to

avoid impacts to water quality and other resources. If construction exceeded the dry periods, work in

water would be required, which would have a direct and adverse impact on water quality (such as from

adding material to the top of the levees). The extent of this impact would be somewhat lessened by

standard best management practices. When in-river work was required, such as for the construction of a

cofferdam to replace the existing diversion and intake structure, impacts would likely range from minor to

moderate. They would not be more severe than this because the riverbed is primarily made up of large

rock and cobble, without the many fine sediments common to an undammed river. 

Heavy equipment would be used for earthwork, the delivery of construction materials, and the erection of

the facility. Equipment would also be used to upgrade existing roads to the site of the Elwha water

treatment plant, and/or to grade new roads to access the federal levee, extend and raise the levees,

floodproof the DCWA alternative well field, construct a cofferdam to redirect the river to remove the rock

diversion structure, and build a new control weir and intake facility. In-river work to replace the dam and

intake facility, repair and strengthen the training dike, install distribution pipelines, and for other reasons

might also be required. Constructing a ring dike around the city’s Ranney well would occur in and around

the existing side channel in that area, as well as the rearing channel fish collection pond. Work would

occur during low-flow conditions so the side channel should be dry. Alternatively, a temporary barrier

(rubber dam, gravel bags, etc.) could be used to separate the work area from the river to minimize impacts

to water quality. No impacts to surface water from construction of the Port Angeles water treatment plant

are anticipated. 

Best management practices would be applied during construction to minimize soil lost to the river and

increases in turbidity; however, some increases in turbidity would inevitably take place. Examples of

standard mitigation measures that would be used include maximizing construction during the dry season;
Surface Water: Impacts of the Proposed Action

113

disposing of excess materials 300 feet away from the river; using straw bales, silt fences, or other erosion

control measures during construction; and stopping work during rain. These measures are standard ones

that have proven effective in stopping soil loss from construction sites. Some small amount of sediment

could sometimes make it past these barriers during heavy rains. The extent is unknown, but it would

probably not be detectable even a short distance downstream from the construction area. Disturbed

ground around the Elwha surface water intake and the Elwha and Port Angeles water treatment plants

would be reclaimed by planting or seeding with native and drought resistant vegetation, which would

reestablish current conditions within a year or less. Immediately following the completion of water

quality facilities, dam removal would begin, and turbidities would periodically exceed 25,000 NTUs. 

The impacts of these increases in turbidity would be temporary, and construction of cofferdams during the

low-flow season would allow work to occur during higher flows while limiting sediment erosion from the

construction site. Loose soil on site and any residual petroleum products from leaks or spills could be

washed into the river with the return of the fall rains, causing a short-term pulse of increased turbidity or

toxicity. The extent of this increase in turbidity could range up to 1,000 NTUs for a short distance downstream, or less than conditions sometimes reach in the river under natural conditions now (river turbidity

reached 2,800 NTUs below the Elwha Dam in October 2003). Because the river is less turbid than under

pre-dam conditions, an increase of 1,000 NTUs could be readily detectable, or have a moderate impact on

surface water quality. Before revegetation was fully effective, additional increases in turbidity resulting

from soil erosion at construction sites would be likely. However, these would coincide with much larger

increases from dam removal and would be comparatively negligible.

Fuel leaks or spills of fuel or other chemical contaminants, should they occur, would be minimized by

inspecting machines for leaks, having spill kits on site (with absorbent material), and conducting machine

maintenance outside the riparian area (at least 150 feet from the river’s edge). Even with these mitigation

measures, it is possible that a small spill or leak would contaminate the river from the construction site a

few miles downstream, and possibly even to the marine environment. The impact to water quality would

be temporary, but could range in intensity in the Elwha River from negligible to moderate for a short

time. 

It is possible that actions associated with fisheries mitigation or revegetation could also have temporary

adverse effects on water quality before, during, or after dam removal (for a period of three to five years).

For instance, heavy equipment could be used to grade the reservoirs, move heavy debris, or arrange logs.

The National Park Service might need to apply herbicides, fertilizers, and soil treatments, such as mulch

or other additives. Mitigation for bull trout would include installing larger culverts on some of the

tributaries to the middle section of the river. These actions could result in the same kinds of impacts as

described above; that is, increases in turbidity or small concentrations of fuels or chemicals. Using best

management practices would minimize the impacts of these activities, but impacts could still be

detectable. 

These same types of construction-related impacts are possible on Morse Creek, where temporary chinookrearing facilities are planned as backup to production on the Elwha. The Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife is estimating the need for four rearing ponds, which at this time would most likely be located

about 200 meters from the stream at around RM 5.5 (near the Morse Creek hydropower facility). An adult

collection trap would be placed annually in the lower section of Morse Creek within 300 to 1,000 meters

downstream of U.S. 101. Again, although best management practices would be required, the water quality

of Morse Creek is designated as a “salmon and trout spawning, core rearing, and migration” area,

reflecting extraordinary water quality. Mitigation beyond the normally mandated best management

practices might be needed to prevent contamination of Morse Creek due to increased turbidity, petroleum

products, or other construction-related chemicals. 
Impacts

114

Operations Impacts — Unlike the FEIS alternative, users would not experience interruption of supply or

long-term decreases in yield, since water would be supplied by means of a surface diversion. This is a

benefit of the proposed action considered in this SEIS. 

Operating the Elwha water treatment plant would require the use and disposal of treatment chemicals,

including alum and polymers, in the form of settled solids. As high turbidity would often correlate to

high-flow conditions in the river, the system would remove the most sediment at the highest river flows,

and the return of settled solids would not induce a measurable increase in downstream turbidity. However, even during lower flows, the solids in the flow returned to the river would be small compared to the

average river flow, and impacts would be negligible to minor. Due to the anticipated total suspended

solids concentrations and the required industrial treatment efficiency, the sheer volume of solids produced

would preclude separation and removal to a landfill site, although ocean disposal might be possible. 

The vast majority of residuals from the Elwha plant would be solids removed from the river by the

treatment process itself. On average the facility would return nearly 50 tons/day of these solids to the river

or ocean following treatment. The actual daily values would vary widely and could be as high as 1,786

tons on a peak turbidity day (URS 2002c, p. 7-28). Early tests indicated 13 mg/L of a polymer in combination with 10 mg/L of alum could reduce 30,000 mg/L of suspended solids to a turbidity of 5 NTUs.

The treatment objective for use by hatcheries is to provide water that does not exceed 20 NTUs on a

continuous basis. Surges of 80–100 NTUs could be tolerated for short periods. The polymer concentration

in treatment residuals is not anticipated to be harmful to aquatic life, because they are disposed of with a

large volume of water, but high doses of both polymers and alum can have adverse effects on fish and

other aquatic life. (See “Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries” for more information.) 

Given the proximity of the Elwha water treatment plant to the river, and the significant increase in river

turbidity (as well as iron and manganese) anticipated during and for several years following dam removal,

it is likely that the addition of alum or polymers to the Elwha River during this time would essentially

have no more than a minor effect (URS 2002c). As the dewatered reservoirs stabilize upstream over time,

turbidity would return to natural levels and vary between 0.1 and 3,000 NTUs. This is expected to occur

within three to five years during and following dam removal (see Table 17). When turbidities stabilized to

the range expected under natural conditions, it is anticipated that ownership of the facility would transfer

to the City of Port Angeles. Treatment residuals would likely be put in a landfill if the facility continued

to be operated after ownership was transferred. 

Surface water quality would continue to be affected by hatchery operations, which would contribute

organic material and low concentrations of chemicals (e.g., formalin) that are used to keep fish diseasefree, as they do now. Both the Elwha River and Morse Creek would experience minor increases in these

contaminants. In the Elwha River increases would occur during dam removal and for three to five years

following removal, at a time when the river water quality would already be severely degraded from

increased turbidity. The impact to water quality would be negligible. Although the hatcheries would

continue to operate when turbidities returned to natural conditions, the impact of releases to the surface

water quality would not be noticeably different from the impacts ongoing now, e.g. they would continue

to be negligible or minor. However, the waters of Morse Creek would not experience any degradation

related to dam removal. The operation of temporary chinook-holding ponds could result in fish fecal

material or other organic waste, which could violate water quality criteria and result in short-term, major

impacts to water quality in Morse Creek. At this time, the state Department of Ecology has indicated that

it would require mitigation measures to ensure that organics or chemicals from operation of the hatchery

did not exceed these standards, including consideration of a pollution abatement pond or wetland to act as

a nutrient filter (DeMond, pers. comm. September 2002). If these mitigation measures were as effective

as anticipated, they could reduce impacts to negligible or minor. 
Surface Water: Impacts of the Proposed Action

115

It is possible that actions associated with fisheries mitigation or revegetation could also have temporary

adverse effects on water quality before, during, or after dam removal (for three to five years). For

instance, heavy equipment would be used to grade the reservoirs, move heavy debris, arrange logs, etc.

The National Park Service might need to apply herbicides, fertilizers, and soil treatments, such as mulch

or other additives. These actions could result in the same kinds of impacts as described above; that is,

increases in turbidity or small concentrations of fuels or chemicals. Using best management practices

would minimize the impacts of these activities, but impacts could still be detectable. 

Cumulative Impacts

As described above under “Background Information on Impacts of Dam Removal,” the increases in

turbidity, manganese, and iron resulting from dam removal would have major, short-term effects on

surface water quality. In particular, turbidity increases from dam removal would overlap with the disposal

of residuals into the river from the operation of the Elwha water treatment plant and so would have an

additive or cumulative effect on water quality. However, these residuals would be nearly all solids that

had been removed from the river during treatment, so additive impacts would be very small.

Conclusion

Surface water users would not be affected in the long term by dam removal because mitigation measures

would be taken to protect them from adverse impacts. Water quality monitoring during and following

removal would help identify and mitigate any additional unknown or unanticipated impacts.

Constructing water quality and supply mitigation facilities, as well as those associated with mitigation of

flood impacts and impacts to anadromous fisheries, would result in increased erosion of soils at construction sites and possible contamination of those soils by petroleum products for two years. Periodic

pulses of turbidity following construction, with impacts ranging from negligible to moderate, would be

likely, even with the use of best management practices. Replanting and reseeding sites after construction

of mitigation facilities would return erosion rates to pre-construction conditions within one year. The

long-term impact of construction on water quality would be negligible. During dam removal and for three

to five years following, turbidity levels would be high enough to have major adverse impacts on water

quality. At the same time, operation of the Elwha water treatment plant would require re-injecting solids

removed from the water back into the river, with negligible cumulative effects. 

Providing users with surface water during dam removal would ensure adequate supply, a benefit

compared to water supply mitigation proposed in the FEIS. This alternative would return treatment

residuals from the Elwha water treatment plant to the river during dam removal; consequently, the impact

would be barely detectable, e.g. a negligible to minor impact on water quality. Short-term releases of

organic material and chemicals from the hatcheries during dam removal would have negligible impacts on

water quality because of ongoing impacts from dam removal. In the long term these releases would

decrease to current levels, with a negligible to minor impact on Elwha River water quality. Before dam

removal and following the return of turbidities to near pre-dam conditions, the impacts on water quality

from the disposal of this effluent could be minor or moderate. Construction and operation of a fish pond

on Morse Creek could result in exceedances of water quality standards, a major adverse impact. With

mitigation, these impacts could be reduced to negligible to minor. 

No impairment of park resources or values related to the Elwha River would occur as a result of the

mitigation measures described in the proposed action.
Impacts

116

Groundwater

Summary of Regulations and Policies

The Safe Drinking Water Act provides requirements and standards for public drinking water supplies.

The Washington Department of Ecology and the Department of Health Drinking Water regulations apply

to existing water supplies.

The Elwha Act (PL 102-495) requires the protection of existing quality and availability of water from the

Elwha River for municipal and industrial uses.

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

Groundwater-related impacts and appropriate mitigation are discussed in detail in the FEIS. Since the

release of the FEIS, the number of affected residents and structures on the Lower Elwha Klallam

Reservation and the type of mitigation desired by the Dry Creek Water Association have changed. Both

the tribe and the association have worked with engineering staff to develop options that were not

evaluated in the FEIS but that are presented in this SEIS. Methodologies to assess suitability of the

groundwater mitigation include feasibility and appraisal level hydrogeology and engineering analyses

conducted by consultants to the interagency team. Impact thresholds were defined as:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection.

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable.

Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent.

Major — The impact would be severe.

As previously discussed, an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it

would have a major adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

Because this SEIS is focused on changes that are relevant to either the proposed action or its impacts, the

discussion of groundwater impacts is focused on the DCWA water supplies and the Lower Elwha Klallam

Tribe septic systems, which in many cases are rendered ineffective by changes in groundwater levels. As

noted in other parts of this document, the Port Angeles Ranney collector was considered a groundwater

source until recently. Impacts to the Ranney collector from dam removal are discussed in the FEIS, and

mitigation for these impacts is proposed and analyzed in the “Surface Water” section above. Therefore,

no additional discussion of the Ranney collector is presented in this groundwater analysis.
Groundwater: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

117

Groundwater Quality. The Elwha River reservoirs act as large settling basins, removing all of the coarse

sediment and some of the fine sediment that is transported from upstream. Therefore, water is on average

slightly less turbid downstream than above the dams. During high flow events, water downstream of the

dams is less turbid than upstream, but it remains turbid for longer periods of time. Wells that are hydraulically connected to the river (such as two older wells belonging to the Dry Creek Water Association

and some individual wells) may have less turbid supplies with the dams in place because of this

phenomenon. The riverbed materials are capable of filtering out fine-grained sediment that could enter

wells hydraulically connected to the river. Following dam removal, it is possible that the river could migrate closer to the wells and remove some of the material that had previously filtered out these finegrained sediments. The armoring of the riverbed with coarse cobbles and gravel and the removal of sand

and fines have contributed to the increased hydraulic connection between the river and the underlying

aquifer. 

Groundwater Levels. As explained above under “Flooding,” the dams have trapped sediment that would

otherwise be distributed as riverbed material, resulting in the degradation or lowering of the river’s

surface elevations. In some cases this has allowed the settlement of portions of the floodplain, and it has

also kept groundwater levels lower than under pre-dam conditions. While a return to pre-dam water levels

might not be problematic for well owners, it could be for septic systems, such as those serving the Lower

Elwha Klallam Reservation residents near the mouth of the river. 

Dry Creek Water Association. The Dry Creek Water Association was formed and incorporated in 1964

to serve the water needs of residents to the south and west of the City of Port Angeles. In 1994 the

association had 392 members, consisting of 349 residential connections and 43 commercial ones. This

increased to 450 connections in 2002. Water is provided through two groundwater wells on the east bank

of the river near RM 3.7. A third well is maintained for backup use. Current pumpage from the two wells

averages about 223 acre-feet per year. The no-action alternative over the planning horizon of dam

removal in the FEIS would include growth rates projected over the next several years. Based on recent

growth rates, annual usage by DCWA customers might increase to 644 acre-feet in 10 years, and to 818

acre-feet in 20 years. The association currently has a 50-year lease for the existing well field; the lease,

which is administered as an Indian family trust property by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is scheduled to

expire in 2014. 

The existing DCWA well field provides water at 135 to 148 gpm with adequate pressure, and only

chlorination treatment is required. 

The current road to the well field is in accessible condition with no apparent erosion problems, although

the last 750 feet are located on the valley floor within the river’s floodplain. The geology of the well field

consists of alluvial materials (sands, gravels, and cobbles) that provide adequate hydraulic capacity to

meet the current DCWA demand. Based on water quality data, the state considers this water supply to be

groundwater, rather than groundwater under the influence of surface water. 

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. The Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation, tribal trust lands, and individual

trust lands include about 1,262 acres near the mouth of the Elwha River. The reservation comprises two

distinct areas: the “Valley” areas along the river and the “Heights” areas above a steep escarpment that

physically bounds the valley. A total of 208 homes and other facilities on these lands generate

wastewater, which is treated by individual septic systems. A majority of these systems are either

conventional septic or modified versions. The depths for the drainfields range from 6 inches to 10 feet,

depending on the type of system used.
Impacts

118

Growth on the reservation is expected to continue at about 5% per year (Ridolfi Inc. 2002). Given this

growth, and the rising groundwater and return of shellfish habitat to the coastline along the reservation

expected following dam removal, the tribe has examined a community approach to wastewater treatment.

Treating water throughout the Valley community in a centralized fashion rather than continuing to use

individual septic systems makes economic, technical, and environmental sense.

Because a community wastewater treatment system might be built regardless of whether the dams are

removed, it is considered a likely part of the no-action alternative. However, it is not analyzed in this

SEIS as part of the no-action alternative because there would be no Elwha project connection to the

building in this case. One of the reasons the tribe is considering centralized wastewater treatment is

because of rising groundwater levels following dam removal, which would render low-lying septic

systems unusable; therefore, impacts of a centralized system are discussed as part of the proposed set of

mitigation measures. 

Cumulative Impacts

As noted above, the presence of the dams and reservoirs has altered the groundwater hydrology, turbidity,

and the hydraulic connectivity of surface and groundwater in the Elwha River. These are cumulative

impacts that would continue under the no-action alternative. The use of groundwater by residents along

the river, and the disposal of wastewater by individual septic systems may have had negligible to minor

adverse impacts on groundwater in the study area as well.

Conclusion

The dams have affected groundwater users by decreasing turbidity during peak flows, holding back

manganese and iron that would normally flush through the system, and increasing groundwater tables for

some well users and artificially decreasing it for lower Elwha valley users. Migration and flooding

frequency have been reduced through the elimination of sediment transport to the middle and lower

reaches, resulting in the armoring of the downstream channel. This has increased yields for some wells

and allowed well users to drill wells in the floodplain. Slight additional impacts on groundwater from well

users have also occurred and would continue under this alternative. No NPS groundwater resources would

be affected by the no-action alternative; therefore, no park resources or values would be impaired.

Impacts of the Proposed Action

Analysis

The extent of the impact to water quality degradation would depend on the method and timing of

sediment releases during dam removal. Fine sediments from the turbid river could infiltrate the well

screens of near-river wells and the coarse riverbed substrate, potentially decreasing hydraulic continuity

between the river and the aquifer. The increased bedload of the river would promote renewed channel

migration and bank erosion, which might also impact near-river wells. As the riverbed aggraded, the river

stage, flood levels, and water table levels would be higher as well. 

Dry Creek Water Association. The primary impact of dam removal on wells, including those of the Dry

Creek Water Association, would be both short- and long-term increases in turbidity, and long-term

aggradation of the riverbed. Some of the fine sediment might settle out in the interstices (spaces between

granules) of the coarse riverbed material and decrease the rate of infiltration from the river to the alluvial

aquifer. However, even with a slight decrease in the infiltration rate, the wells should not have a decrease
Groundwater: Impacts of the Proposed Action

119

in yield. Rather, the area affected by the well drawdown (cone of depression) would just expand until it

equaled the pumping rate.

The DCWA wells are often affected during periods of high river turbidity. Projected levels of suspended

sediment with the river erosion alternative could exceed 50,000 mg/L for short periods during dam

removal; this would likely cause water in these wells to exceed the regulated turbidity levels. As noted

above, fine lake bottom sediment from Lake Mills contains high pore water concentrations of iron

(average of three samples was 27,500 μg/L) and manganese (average of three samples was 4,670 μg/L).

These metals would be released into the river as the dams were removed and for three to five years

afterwards, and they could cause iron fouling of water delivery systems and mineral staining of fixtures

and clothing. Because this form of iron and manganese is dissolved, it could move with the groundwater

into the aquifer. More likely, the iron would oxidize and precipitate out of solution and be transported

with the majority of the sediment to the strait. Because the wells at the existing location are not

considered to be under the influence of surface water for treatment purposes, only chlorination and

filtration following dam removal would be required to maintain quality.

Changes required at the existing well field to mitigate impacts related to dam removal include raising the

wellheads and access road to a minimum elevation of 90 feet (the access road is currently at 83 feet

elevation and the well field at 86 feet elevation). One well would be abandoned, and a new control and

chlorination building would be constructed in the elevated area. The road is in an accessible condition

with no apparent erosion problems, although the last 750 feet are located on the valley floor within the

river’s floodplain. 

Because the well field lease is due to expire in 2014, the Dry Creek Water Association is considering an

alternative well field site on the opposite bank about 0.25 mile downstream plus options to bring water

from this field to its users (see URS 2003a).

The geology of the alternative well field consists of alluvial materials and appears adequate for DCWA

water requirements. Water quality appears to be good and not under the influence of surface water (e.g.

low risk for microscopic particulates), but this is based on one well and must be corroborated with production well data. A concern with water quality at this site is related to a residence and its septic system

drainfield, which is adjacent to the well field site. In order for the alternative well field to be permitted,

the septic system would need to be removed, and either the residence would need to be provided with an

alternate method of wastewater disposal or it would have to be removed. The Dry Creek Water Association is currently working with the property owner on removal of the residence and septic system. The

area receives moderate use and shows evidence of vandalism; therefore, development of the alternative

well field would include a perimeter fence.

The alternative well field site would require drilling two wells, constructing a new control and chlorination building, installing pumps and a new chlorination system, and providing a new electrical supply for

these facilities. This alternative would also require the demolition and abandonment of the existing well

field and associated facilities.

Development of the alternative well field must meet Washington State Department of Health drinking

water regulations and provide a level of service equal to the existing system. The required delivery rate

for an alternate water source would be 250 gpm at the connection point to the DCWA distribution system.

Regardless of which well field the association used, access roads must be above the 100-year flood

elevation and pipelines must consider contamination potential and soil stability. Either the existing or the

alternative well field must be protected from flooding and river migration (see the “Flooding” section for

more information). To minimize potential for damage from river migration, either well field site would
Impacts

120

also require armoring with rock. Either well field would require site improvements such as excavations

and filling using heavy equipment. 

Distributing water to users from the alternative well field would require crossing the river, and each of the

pipeline route alternatives would make use of existing structures or rights-of-way to the maximum extent

possible. 

• Alternative route A would follow the site access road to Elwha River Road, proceed west to the

intersection with Highway 112 and cross the river on the Highway 112 bridge. 

• Alternative route B would follow an overgrown access road and travel cross-country to intersect

with Highway 112 and would also cross the river on the Highway 112 bridge. 

• Alternative route C would follow the site access road to the one-lane bridge (Elwha River Road)

and use it to cross the river. The one-way bridge is scheduled for replacement in 2006 (according

to the Clallam County Engineering Department).

• Alternative route D would travel south along the floodplain and cross the river by way of the

existing powerline right-of-way. This alternative would not make use of any existing bridges or

other structures, and it would require excavating through the riverbed, directionally drilling

beneath the riverbed, or constructing a pipe bridge over the river. 

• Alternative route E would cross a new proposed diversion structure, located just upstream of the

existing rock diversion structure (if it was located in such a way that the pipeline could connect to

it). 

Under another option the association would abandon the existing well field and tie into the Port Angeles

municipal system. This alternative would require replacing the existing DCWA line and tying into a 6-

inch iron Port Angeles water supply line, both of which are located along Airport Road. A booster pump

station would also be needed for this option.

Use of existing bridges or the new industrial intake facility for river crossings must consider the

feasibility of safely attaching a pipeline to these structures and the ability to maintain the pipeline and

associated equipment once it was attached. Using existing bridges would also require coordination with

the Washington State Department of Transportation and Clallam County regarding current and future

plans for the structures. River crossings (such as for route C) would require permitting and more in-depth

analysis to determine whether they are environmentally compatible.

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. Hydraulic and sediment transport studies have indicated that groundwater

in the vicinity of the river mouth is hydraulically connected to the Elwha River; therefore, it is expected to

rise in elevation as the river rises as a result of aggradation of the riverbed. It is estimated that the river

water surface elevation could rise 2 to 5 feet (average of 2.5 feet) in the vicinity of tribal lands. Piezometric testing of wells in the Valley area indicates the ratio of river level change to groundwater change

could be as high at 1:1. This means the groundwater could rise the same amount as the river level in some

areas. Up to 109 tribal septic systems, and an additional 13 nontribal septic systems, could be rendered

ineffective by rising groundwater following dam removal.

Because the tribe is growing, and because a substantial number of existing residences and structures in the

Valley area will require upgraded treatment, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe has studied community

wastewater treatment for the entire Valley community. Three alternative treatment and disposal

alternatives were examined in detail — a community drainfield, a system for community treatment and

disposal, and a connection to Port Angeles wastewater treatment facility (Berryman & Henigar 2003).

The study found that the community drainfield would be inadequate for full build-out of the reservation,
Groundwater: Impacts of the Proposed Action

121

and that the community treatment option would have greater environmental impacts, potential public

health impacts, cost, and maintenance than would the Port Angeles connection. The tribal community

held three meetings to share information, to discuss the alternatives, and to vote on their preferred

alternative; 57% voted in favor of the Port Angeles connection. A Port Angeles connection would require

a vacuum collection system, a central pump to pump the wastewater, and 2.5 miles of pipeline to connect

to the nearest Port Angeles sewer line. Existing drainfields would be abandoned, and the septic tanks

would be filled with sand and overlaid with soil. 

The central pump station (including a vacuum pump for the collection system and a lift station to initiate

the force main conveyance system) would be in the central portion of the Valley community at an

elevation above the lowest elevation home (5.4 feet above sea level) but no more than 20 feet above sea

level. The collection system would consist of pipes from 4 to 6 inches in diameter that would generally

run along existing streets and driveways. Terrain of the collection system is generally level, with a slope

of 0% to 3% on soils with moderately low permeability. 

The collection system would deliver wastewater to a pump station and odor control facilities that would

occupy a building approximately 20 feet by 30 feet surrounded by chain link fence on an appropriate lot

at a maximum elevation of no more than 25 feet above sea level (for example east of Stratton Road at the

north end of North Hupt Lane). All considered sites have similar soils (of moderate permeability), are

level or nearly level, and support a grassy vegetative cover without rare or endangered plants. Grounddisturbing activities should be monitored by an archeologist to ensure the protection of cultural resources.

A 20-horsepower pump lift station location would pump wastewater in a 2.5-mile pipeline to the city’s

system along one of two routes: 

• Pipeline route 1 — After initially following Lower Elwha Road, the conveyance pipeline would

travel along the existing roadbed under one lane of the pavement to the intersection with the

Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way (owned by the City of Port Angeles). It would travel east along

the railroad grade, across Dry Creek, and terminate at the point the grade crosses 18th Street,

where it would connect with the city’s sewer. 

• Pipeline route 2 — From the pump station the pipeline would extend south along Stratton Road to

the Army Corps Road, then southeast to the toe of the valley wall. Here it would follow the route

the tribe is considering as a new primary access route to the reservation and then traverse the

Elwha Valley bluff to the Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way. It would then follow the railroad

grade across Lower Elwha Road and across Dry Creek, terminating at the point the grade crosses

18th Street, where it would connect with the city’s sewer.

A manhole at the city connection point and air scrubber units at both the pump station and discharge

manhole would be installed. Scrubbers are typically 85-gallon drums set on a concrete pad, filled with

filtering media and topped by a suction fan that pulls gases from belowground structures through the filter

media. The pipeline would be sized to carry 300 gpm. The initial phase as planned for this project would

serve existing tribal homes in the Valley with flow expected to be 21,000 gpd. 

Thirteen homes on the northeast portion of the Elwha River delta outside tribal lands and within Clallam

County could be added to the collection system or receive individual mound systems as possible

mitigation for rising groundwater. Five of these homes are on property contiguous to the reservation on

small parcels (1 acre or less) in an area of more intense rural development. Because 50% to 70% of each

lot is on the steep valley wall, space could dictate mitigation through a community wastewater hook-up as

the only practical solution. The most cost-effective alternative would be used to serve these homes and

other more remote non-tribal homes.
Impacts

122

Lower Elwha Valley Reservation Community Groundwater Resources

Lower Elwha Valley Reservation Community Groundwater Resources
Groundwater: Impacts of the Proposed Action

123

A meeting with the City of Port Angeles on September 20, 2002, indicated that a connection would be

welcome because the city’s wastewater plant is currently underutilized. On March 4, 2003, the Port

Angeles City Council approved the concept of accepting wastewater from the Lower Elwha Reservation,

and on March 6, 2003, it approved the easement along the Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way. The tribe

hosted a meeting May 19, 2003, with state, county, city, and federal stakeholders to discuss the details of

this interjurisdictional project. Final agreements are now in progress, subject to review by the Washington

State Office of Community Trade and Economic Development and the Department of Ecology.

The crossing of Dry Creek could require additional permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Construction-Related Impacts. Construction-related impacts include increased turbidity and possible

contamination from fuels or lubricants, as described under “Surface Water.” As a result, well water

quality for downstream users could be temporarily degraded. Since much of this construction would occur

before the dams were removed, pulses of turbidity might be detectable in some downstream wells,

particularly between RM 3.3 and 2.8, where the majority of construction would take place. These wells

include those associated with the WDFW rearing channel, the Port Angeles Ranney collector, and the

Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association (at RM 1.2). However, as noted in the discussion of construction

impacts on surface water, best management practices would be used to stop nearly all soil or chemicals

from entering the river at the construction sites. Some overflow could occur during storm events, but

turbidities are not expected to reach more than 1,000 NTUs. This is within the range of turbidities

experienced in the river now; therefore, impacts would be negligible to minor and would not be detectable

very far downstream or for more than a period of hours or days.

Cumulative Impacts

Dam removal might cause short-term degradation of water quality in the alluvial aquifer. Over the long

term groundwater levels would rise as a result of channel aggradation. Additional growth along the river

or on the reservation would increase demand from groundwater resources. 

Conclusion

The impacts of dam removal on groundwater include temporary increases in turbidity, manganese, and

iron in wells, as well as an increase in river stage and associated groundwater levels in some areas.

Without mitigation, users would experience minor to major impacts from dam removal. Mitigation for

most wells would remain the same as that analyzed in the FEIS; however, the Dry Creek Water

Association is considering an alternative well field and distribution system. Because additional homes

beyond those identified in the FEIS would be affected by rising groundwater levels, the Lower Elwha

Klallam Tribe is building a wastewater collection and pumping facility to carry wastewater to Port

Angeles for treatment. With these mitigation measures, impacts from changes in groundwater following

dam removal would be kept to negligible. No park values or resources related to groundwater would be

affected by this alternative; therefore, no impairment would occur.
Impacts

124

Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries

Summary of Regulations and Policies

Fisheries management in the national park system is directed by policy and guidelines with roots in the

NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). The act directs the Secretary of the Interior and the

National Park Service to manage national parks and monuments to “conserve the scenery and the natural

and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner

and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” These general

powers were broadened by the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 79a-79q), in

which the Congress gave further direction to the secretary to ensure that the management and administration of the national park system “shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for

which these various areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by the Congress.” Consistent with these broad authorities, current NPS fisheries

management policies emphasize the preservation and, when necessary, restoration of natural assemblages

of native species.

The National Park Service manages all park resources with an emphasis on protecting fundamental ecological processes, species, and communities. Fisheries management is focused on preserving or restoring

the natural behavior, genetic variability and diversity, and ecological integrity of native fish populations.

Management of resources and users in parks with anadromous or other migratory species must include

provisions for the preservation of these species and their habitats inside park boundaries and for

cooperation with other management authorities to ensure the preservation of populations and habitats

outside the parks.

The restoration of depleted fish stocks and threatened or endangered species is a high priority for fishery

management in the national park system. The restoration of native fishes often involves the control or

eradication of nonnative or exotic species. The restoration of migratory fishes, such as Pacific salmon,

may require the removal of barriers to upstream spawning areas or the restoration of freshwater wetlands

to provide critical nursery areas. The development of new laboratory techniques for genetic analyses

provides park managers with tools to identify and restore endemic fish strains. These techniques, when

integrated with fish culture, improve the chances of restoring native fishes in natural areas of parks.

Other state, federal, and tribal agencies also establish fishery management policies and regulations

affecting the Elwha River. For the Strait of Juan de Fuca fisheries, including the Elwha River, policies

and regulations are established through the cooperative efforts of the Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife and various tribes, including the Lower Elwha Klallam, the Jamestown S’Klallam, the Port

Gamble S’Klallam, and the Makah Tribes. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe administers tribal freshwater

fisheries in an area from the Hoko River to Morse Creek, including the Elwha River.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council is responsible for the management of all U.S. salmon fisheries

in the Conservation Management Zone along the coastal marine waters of Washington, Oregon, and

California, which could potentially impact fish stocks in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Each year

management guidelines are adopted by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council based on projected run

sizes and fishery objectives.

Other state and federal regulations affecting fisheries include: 

• State Hydraulic Code (Revised Code of Washington [RCW], Chapter 75.20.100–140) — Its

purpose is to protect fish life from damage by construction and other activities in all waters of the
Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

125

state. It is carried out through a permit, referred to as the hydraulic project approval, obtained

from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act — It requires that equal consideration be given to wildlife,

including fish, when there is a proposal to control or modify any stream or other water.

• Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, and Clean Water Act, Section 404 — These acts require U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers permits for construction and disposal of dredged material in waters of

the United States.

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

The impacts to fish of the mitigation facilities analyzed in this document are discussed in two sections, as

are those on wildlife. This is because some species of fish and other wildlife are protected under the

federal Endangered Species Act or by the state of Washington. The analysis of impacts to fish and

wildlife with this special protection is covered in “Species of Special Concern.” Fish without special

status are discussed below. 

Construction and operation of the water quality, water supply, or flood mitigation facilities can have

impacts on fish. Fisheries management experts were consulted on the types and degree of impacts that the

new protection and restoration efforts, as well as construction and operation of the water and flood

mitigation facilities, might have on stocks in the Elwha River. Standard threshold definitions were applied

as follows:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection.

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable.

Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent.

Major — The impact would be severe.

As previously discussed, an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it

would have a major adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

Marine and freshwater harvest, ocean conditions, land use practices, water use, hydropower, flood

protection measures, and stormwater management all have cumulative, or additive, effects on the status of

fish populations. In the Elwha River the largest single factor affecting anadromous fish populations has

been the construction and operation of the two dams. Building the dams had an immediate and

devastating impact on the 10 runs of Elwha anadromous fish. The river went from producing more than

390,000 salmon and sea-run trout in 1910 (based on habitat available to the fish and fish production

modeling) to fewer than 3,000 wild native anadromous fish today. Hatcheries now provide the vast
Impacts

126

majority of salmon and steelhead in the river, and existing stocks in the lower river unsupported by

artificial propagation would decline to extinction under the no-action alternative.

Approximately 70 miles of the river’s mainstem and its tributaries are assumed to have been available to

anadromous species before the dams were built. All but the lowest 4.9 miles, or 93%, of this habitat was

eliminated when Elwha Dam was completed in 1913. Steelhead and possibly other species could have

traveled as far as 43 miles up the 45-mile main channel before encountering impassable stretches (James

River II 1988). Carlson Canyon Falls at RM 34 may have blocked some species, depending on timing and

condition of the fish. It is unknown but widely speculated that the relatively poor jumping ability of pink

and chum salmon may have restricted them to the region below Rica Canyon (RM 16) (James River II

1988).

In the middle reach of the river the current quality and quantity of potential habitat are degraded because

the Glines Canyon Dam has held back the gravels fish require for spawning (James River II 1988; WDF

1971). In addition, the 2.8 miles of the mainstem currently inundated by Lake Aldwell are wholly

unavailable for spawning. The channel is also migrating less, resulting in less pool and side channel

habitat that fish need to successfully rear.

The Elwha Dam has had a similar influence on habitat in the 4.9 miles of the lower river. In its present

condition the Elwha’s lower reach has limited salmon spawning and rearing areas due to shrinking gravel

bars and fewer side channel habitats. 

Spawning gravel and large woody debris important for cover during the rearing period are largely absent

in both the middle and lower reaches of the river because of the dams. Particulate organic matter, which is

required to sustain the invertebrates on which the fish feed, is present only in very low concentrations in

both the lower and middle reaches. Water temperatures are 4o

C–8oC higher on average during late

summer and early fall because of solar heating of the reservoir waters.

Flood control activities in the late 1940s and early 1950s likely hastened the loss of lower river habitat.

Bulldozers were used to straighten the river channel and build dikes, thus increasing river flow energy

and reducing backwater habitat. In the Elwha, the federal levee has eliminated access to or quality of

some side channel habitat. Where the river or side channels do flow, contact armoring along the levee

slope could be adversely affecting the quality of spawning, rearing, and shelter habitat. Natural shade

from riparian vegetation, woody debris recruitment, and sediment transport would be negatively impacted

by rock armoring along these areas. 

The dams have also reduced the size and complexity of the Elwha River estuary by as much as 0.5 square

mile because coarse sediment and nutrient transports were blocked. This adversely affected anadromous

fish, which use the estuary as a nursery.

Overall, the effects on anadromous fisheries of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams have been major,

adverse, and long term.

Pink Salmon. The dams have also severely degraded or blocked traditional spawning grounds for pink

salmon, which are believed to have used the first 16 miles of the mainstem of the Elwha River and 9.7

miles of tributaries. The substrate now available for spawning below the dams consists of embedded

cobble that is of little use to pink salmon. The rock diversion structure at RM 3.5, which impounds water

for the industrial intake, may be impassable by pink salmon at certain flow conditions. Juvenile fish

passing downstream on the right channel at this location are swept into the surface water intake and are

bypassed back to the river via the existing vertical fish screen and bypass facilities. Potential impacts
Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

127

from this screen and bypass system are unknown, although juvenile fish have been documented within the

industrial pipeline (past the screens). 

There has never been a hatchery program for Elwha pink salmon. In-river harvest has been negligible.

The peak run to the river since 1959 was nearly 40,000 fish (in 1963), but the returns dramatically

decreased in subsequent years. By 1989 surveys of the river did not find any spawning adult pink salmon.

Returns in recent years (1999, 2001, and 2003) seem to be building slightly, although abundance remains

at critically low levels. In 2001 several hundred pink salmon were observed to spawn. Under the noaction alternative Elwha pink salmon would not recover. 

Chum Salmon. The historical upstream distribution of chum salmon is not known. However, chum are

the poorest jumpers of all Elwha River salmon, and it is thought that chum used only the lower 16 miles

of the river. Currently, the lack of spawning gravels in the lower river makes it largely unsuitable for

chum, although they use side channel areas. Since chum salmon rearing occurs mainly in the estuarine or

marine environment, the decreased size of the Elwha River estuary may have played a particularly critical

role in reducing the population. 

During recent years runs to the Elwha River have typically been less than 1,000 fish, with a peak of 1,500

in 1980. Recently, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe has been collecting eggs from chum salmon,

fertilizing them, and burying them in egg trays in the gravel within lower Elwha River side channels near

the tribal hatchery as a pilot project to maintain population numbers. Without hatchery intervention, this

stock would likely remain at critically low levels and could eventually be extirpated under the no-action

alternative.

Sockeye Salmon. All major stocks of sockeye require a river system with a connected lake. The only lake

in the Elwha River drainage is Lake Sutherland, now inaccessible because of the Elwha Dam. Harvest

records from 1982 to 1991 show an in-river harvest of only eight sockeye total over the 10-year period

(Hoines 1994). These fish were probably strays and could have come from coastal (Ozette or Quinault),

Puget Sound (Baker or Lake Washington), or Fraser River runs.

Under the no-action alternative sockeye in the Elwha River would not recover.

Steelhead. Steelhead numbers in the lower reach of the river are probably most limited by rearing habitat.

The tribal hatchery releases an average of 120,000 hatchery smolts each year (PSMFC 1995) and about

3,100 adult fish return. Under the no-action alternative natural production would continue to decline;

eventually, all steelhead production would become dependent on artificial propagation. Hatchery dependence would impact fish because of disease, genetic problems, and breakdowns, as mentioned above.

Cutthroat Trout. Cutthroat densities in the lower river (i.e., the anadromous component of the stock)

have declined during the last decade primarily because spawning substrate quality is poor and the lower

Elwha has limited amounts of the small tributaries with low gradient areas that this species requires.

Under this alternative numbers of cutthroat in the lower river would continue to decline or remain

extremely low. Resident populations would continue where they are now found in the middle and upper

reaches of the Elwha River.

Resident Rainbow Trout and Sturgeon. Rainbow trout are the most abundant game fish in the river and

reservoirs above the Elwha Dam based on historical (Mausolf and Sundvick 1976) and recent surveys

(Morrill and McHenry 1995; Collins 1983). The dams may have resulted in an increase in rainbow and

other resident trout, as competition for food and habitat from anadromous species has been eliminated.
Impacts

128

Factors that may be controlling rainbow populations below the Glines Canyon Dam include poor

spawning gravel quality, which would affect abundance, and low food supply, which would affect fish

growth and possibly survival.

The historical presence of sturgeon in the Elwha River is unknown. Factors controlling the Elwha

sturgeon population are not known. Compared to other major sturgeon-producing streams, the Elwha

River estuary is small and may limit sturgeon production.

Under the no-action alternative, resident rainbow trout would continue where they are now found in the

middle and upper reaches of the Elwha River. Estuary habitat would continue to provide only minimal

habitat for sturgeon.

Cumulative Impacts

Marine and freshwater harvest, warmer than normal waters, logging, development, water diversions,

agricultural activities, removal of riparian vegetation, and bank hardening to protect roads and private and

public property, all have a cumulative effect on fisheries. Dwindling salmon populations in spots along

the entire West Coast are largely because of habitat loss or degradation. In the Elwha River the largest

single factor affecting anadromous fisheries has been the construction and operation of the dams. 

The impact of harvest and other cumulative actions is evident in reduced catches and the more frequent

listing of anadromous fish species as threatened or endangered. As an example, the National Marine

Fisheries Service (now NOAA Fisheries) proposed in March 1995 that wild steelhead runs from the

Klamath River, California, north to Port Orford, Oregon, be listed as threatened under the Endangered

Species Act because of population declines. The Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit of coho

salmon was declared a candidate for listing by the agency in 1995. Two stocks of Elwha anadromous fish

— the bull trout and the chinook salmon — have been listed as threatened under the federal Endangered

Species Act. Most other Elwha salmon and anadromous trout, including chum, pink, and sockeye salmon,

as well as coastal cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden, have been listed as Washington State species of

concern. 

Cumulative effects on pink and chum salmon include the increased hatchery outplanting of juvenile coho,

steelhead, and chinook, which may feed on newly emerged pink and chum salmon (Crain 1992; Fresh and

Schroder 1987; Johnson 1973). Poor ocean conditions, little or no estuary habitat, and high water temperatures in the Elwha River also have adverse effects on pink salmon.

Some marine fishing of chum salmon takes place, as has in-river harvest. Reported tribal in-river harvest

for 1985–95 ranged from 820 to fewer than 50 fish per year; no directed in-river harvest of chum has

taken place since 1987. From 1988 to 1992 incidental catch of chum during other river fisheries averaged

just over 100 fish annually (Hoines 1995). Ocean and British Columbia harvest of Elwha River chum

salmon is considered minor, at less than 5% (WDF 1984). 

Tribal in-river commercial fishery of steelhead averages 1,450 fish per year (PNPTC and WDFW 1994).

Sports anglers harvest an additional 1,150 winter and 355 summer steelhead on average each year

(PNPTC and WDFW 1994). Very few steelhead are harvested in the marine environment, largely due to a

lack of fishing effort in saltwater during their return migration period (December through April).

Steelhead also tend to stay close to the surface and near shore during their final marine migration, thus

avoiding a majority of the commercial fisheries in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Graves,

per. comm. Oct. 1995).
Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries: Background Impacts of Dam Removal

129

The impact of commercial fishing and sportfishing of salmon stocks extends beyond the national border

since Pacific Coast fish produced in one area not only traverse the waters of many states, but are captured

by Canadian anglers as well, and U.S. anglers capture fish produced in Canada. Because of this, harvest is

managed on the international level through the Pacific Salmon Treaty, on the national level through the

Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and on the local level through Washington State and treaty tribes.

The purposes of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which controls the number of fish of U.S. origin caught by

Canadian anglers, are to “prevent overfishing and provide for optimum production” and to “provide for

each Party to receive benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating in its waters.”

Regional, national, and international fisheries management has helped prevent overharvest of most stocks,

although this sometimes occurs. Additional regional harvest reductions to protect runs would likely be

sufficient to help restore the Elwha River if the dams were removed. 

Conclusion

The Elwha Dam confines native anadromous fish to the lower 4.9 miles of river habitat and prevents their

access to more than 70 miles of usable habitat in the middle and upper reaches of the Elwha River. The

two dams degrade habitat in the lower river by increasing water temperatures to levels that contribute to

disease outbreaks, trapping large woody debris important for instream cover, reducing nutrient flow

necessary for invertebrate (food) production, and trapping spawning-sized gravels essential for successful

natural reproduction. The trapping of coarse sediment and nutrients also adversely affects the size and

quality of the estuary near the river mouth, which serves as a nursery for juvenile salmonids. In addition,

the lack of bedload in the lower river prevents the formation of side channel habitat used by chum for

spawning and coho for rearing. Elwha salmon have also been subject to a number of cumulative impacts

unrelated to park management activities, including ocean fishing and hatchery production. 

Under the no-action alternative there would be no new wild production of native anadromous fish, and

hatcheries would continue to provide the vast majority of Elwha anadromous fish. Existing stocks in the

lower river unsupported by artificial propagation would likely decline to extinction. 

Overall, the effects on anadromous fisheries of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams have been major,

adverse, and long term. However, because fishery resources in the Elwha River are not called out by the

enabling legislation for Olympic National Park, or mentioned as a resource for which the park is deemed

significant, no impairment to park resources or values would occur.

Background Impacts of Dam Removal

This information is from the Implementation FEIS and is presented as background to help make this

document stand alone. As noted in other sections of the SEIS, the decision to remove the dams has

already been made and formalized in a “Record of Decision.”

Dam removal would result in temporary, high concentrations of suspended sediment and turbidity that

would cause moderate, short-term habitat degradation and direct losses of fish in the middle reach of the

river. More severe impacts, including avoidance by immigrating adults, would be seen in the lower river.

The highest levels would coincide with each notch opening during dam removal and subsequent flood

flows. Since fine sediment is expected to wash downstream quickly, that available for transport from the

reservoir areas would rapidly decrease following dam removal. Some increases in suspended sediment

concentrations and turbidity would be expected with high flows in the years following dam removal, but

the portion attributable to fines from reservoir areas would decline with each subsequent high flow.
Impacts

130

Between 4.9 and 5.6 million cubic yards of fine sediment would be released during and following dam

removal, adversely affecting 16 miles of fish habitat from the upper end of Lake Mills to the river mouth for

up to four years. However, sediment releases would be intermittent and of decreasing duration following

dam removal. Peak concentrations of suspended sediment could exceed 50,000 mg/L during high flows or

during drawdown. Between 1 and 3 million cubic yards of sand and coarser material also would be released

from the reservoirs, causing abnormal bedload concentrations.

Modeling showed that the reservoir drawdown period would last an estimated 500 to 600 days, during

which suspended sediment concentrations would exceed 200 mg/L 60%–70% of the time, 1,000 mg/L

40%–60% of the time, and 10,000 mg/L 1%–6% of the time (mg/L and ppm are nearly equivalent for

concentrations up to 10,000 ppm) (Bureau of Reclamation 1996). While the dams were being removed,

there would be three long periods of high sediment concentration separated by two periods of low sediment

concentration. Following complete dam removal, two or three large spikes of suspended sediment

concentration would be anticipated; these would likely occur during the high flows in the first fall or winter

after dam removal.

Hatchery support, outplanting, harvest management, and optimal timing of dam removal would help

protect anadromous fish populations during the dam removal process and accelerate restoration. These

actions are required both to meet the restoration goals set out by the Elwha Act and to comply with

Washington State regulations (State Hydraulic Code). They are described in the FEIS and remain

unchanged except for chinook and bull trout, both of which have been listed as threatened species. The

changes are described in the “Alternatives” chapter, and elaborated on in “Impacts to Species of Special

Concern.”

Impacts of the Proposed Action

Analysis

Construction Impacts. The primary impact to Elwha River fisheries from the actions described in the

“Alternatives” chapter would be increases in turbidity associated with construction. Studies have found

that direct effects of suspended sediments on fish begin to occur between 50 and 100 mg/L, while lethal

and sublethal effects begin at concentrations of 10,000 mg/L for more than four days, or 1,000 mg/L for

six weeks or more (see FEIS for more information and references). Chronic (more than six weeks)

exposure to concentrations of 100 mg/L have been shown to adversely affect feeding and to cause

reductions in growth rates, as well as avoidance and downstream displacement of individual fish. Adult

anadromous fish may avoid concentrations greater than 350 mg/L, impeding upstream migrations

(Brannon et al. 1981; Whitman et al. 1982). Stress, as measured by changes in blood chemistry, was

reported in fish exposed for short periods to sediment concentrations as low as 50 mg/L (McLeay 1983).

As noted above under “Surface Water,” all mitigation measures discussed in this SEIS, with the exception

of the Port Angeles water treatment plant, would be built along the banks or very near the Elwha River.

The majority of construction-related impacts would occur between RM 3.7 and RM 2.8. In this 0.9

stretch, from south to north, the following projects would occur:

• providing flood protection for (1) the existing DCWA well field; or (2) for an alternative well

field site and access road on the opposite bank, plus a pipeline along one of five routes to

distribute water from the alternate DCWA well field; or (3) a pipeline to connect the association

to the city’s municipal distribution system (RM 3.5–3.7)

• replacing the existing rock diversion structure with a new diversion and intake structure (RM 3.5–

3.6) 
Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries: Impacts of the Proposed Action

131

• raising and strengthening roads and an in-river dike to allow access to the Elwha water treatment

plant, Ranney collector, and WDFW fish-rearing channel (RM 3.3–2.8) 

• building a ring dike around at least the Ranney collector and possibly more (RM 2.8) 

• constructing the Elwha water treatment plant (RM 2.8–3.0) 

• raising and strengthening an in-river training dike paralleling the rearing channel 

Downstream from this stretch of river the following projects would take place: 

(1) constructing a new tribal hatchery, wastewater pumping station, and distribution pipeline (RM

2.0)

(2) possibly raising and extending the federal levee on the east side of the floodplain both north and

south (RM 0.1–1.6)

(3) raising or removing a private levee on the opposite side of the river (RM 0.0–0.1)

Heavy equipment would be used for virtually all of this work. 

To the extent possible, these facilities would be constructed in the two dry seasons before dam removal

began in order to avoid impacts to fish. Best management practices would be applied during construction

to minimize soil lost to the river and increases in turbidity; however, some increases in turbidity would

inevitably take place when the river refilled during the fall and winter. If construction exceeded the dry

periods, turbidity, fuels, lubricants, and chemicals could threaten water quality and fish for short periods

of time, such as during high storm events. Because turbidity would already be higher than normal during

these events, the washing into the river or side channel of loose soil or other pollutants might not be a

detectable change. However, if an accidental release took place, a pulse of increased turbidity would be

noticeable. 

In addition to construction work near the river, some in-river work would be required to replace the

diversion and intake facility, to install or replace some flood control measures, and possibly to lay

pipelines. Sediment release from these activities could be minimized by working during low-flow or dry

seasons, or constructing a cofferdam or other barrier, but eventually a pulse of sediment would be

released downstream. In addition, a temporary channel would be built to divert water around the site of

the weir control and water intake so construction could take place in the river channel for a longer season.

The channel might also serve to reduce impacts to fish. Because river substrate below the dams is

primarily embedded cobbles rather than fines, sediment release would be less than in a similar undammed

river. The rock diversion structure also has accumulated gravels that would be released when the dams

were removed. This would cause a loss of spawning sized gravel from behind the dams, a minor, shortterm, adverse impact to fish using this gravel for spawning. The gravels would be replaced following dam

removal. 

It is unlikely that fish would experience turbidities related to construction of more than 1,000 mg/L. This

is a sedimentation level already experienced during storm events in the Elwha River, with no known or

apparent increases in morbidity or mortality among fish. If a storm added sediment from upstream,

turbidities could be higher in the vicinity of the mitigation facilities during construction, up to a maximum

of about 2,000 mg/L. As noted above, these turbidity levels can affect fish feeding and behavior if they

occur over a longer period of time (more than six weeks). However, because theses levels should not last

more than a few hours or days, only negligible to minor localized impacts, confined to the lower 3.7 miles

of the main river stem, are expected.
Impacts

132

These same types of construction-related impacts are possible on Morse Creek, where temporary chinookrearing facilities are planned as backup to Elwha production. The Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife estimates four rearing ponds would be needed. Again, although best management practices

would be followed, Morse Creek is home or potential habitat for anadromous steelhead, cutthroat, coho,

pink, chinook, and chum salmon, as well as resident cutthroat and rainbow trout. Because turbidity

impacts would be temporary and within the range normally experienced on Morse Creek, pulses of

turbidity related to construction are not expected to have more than a negligible to minor impact on fish

stocks.

In addition to increases in turbidity, construction could remove riparian vegetation or prey used by fish

species. In-stream work particularly would disrupt the riverbed and any invertebrate prey. However, this

impact is expected to be of short duration as aquatic invertebrates rapidly recolonize relatively small,

depopulated areas (Somer and Hassler 1992). Overhanging vegetation would regrow for the most part

following construction, although permanent loss of streamside habitat would be likely at the diversion and

intake site, as well as along the access road. Other permanent, localized losses of this type of fish habitat

are also possible if roads or an access was built down to the river’s edge, or if the ground level was raised

for wellheads (such as either DCWA well field). Because the losses would be localized, they would likely

only have minor adverse effects on fish species.

As noted above, juvenile anadromous fish have difficulty navigating the rock diversion structure and

intake facility at RM 3.5. Juvenile pink and chum salmon, because they are very small, have a particularly

difficult time with this barrier to upstream navigation. Even adult pink and chum salmon might not be

able to clear the dam during some flow conditions. Most juvenile fish passing downstream on the right

channel now are swept into the surface water intake. Although most are bypassed back to the river by way

of an existing vertical fish screen and bypass facility, some injury or mortality can result. A new intake

facility designed for a location about 225 feet upstream from the current location would incorporate stateof-the-art fish screen and bypass facilities, resulting in less injury and impact and greater bypass success. 

The planned control weir and Elwha surface water intake upstream from the rock diversion structure

would be built with several features designed to minimize impacts to fish. These include designing a

section of the control weir to reduce flows passing by the intake structure, a modified section of river

downstream from the control weir to provide a roughened channel that would mimic a natural river reach

and allow for fish passage, a fish screen, and a bypass facility. Compared to the rock diversion structure,

this control weir and intake facility would have a moderate, beneficial, long-term impact on pink and

chum salmon, and a negligible to minor, beneficial, long-term impact on other anadromous stocks in the

Elwha River.

Federal levee mitigation activities would occur outside any active river channels. However, in recent

years a historic side channel has periodically activated during moderate flood events and made contact

with the midsection of the existing levee near the hatchery. Consequently, the existing levee could be

armored with 2-foot rock from the top of the 3,750-foot levee (river side) to the elevation of the river

thalweg to address this channel and any future shift in the mainstem. Proposed levee extensions include a

450-foot northern extension to the beach berm and 600- to 1,600-foot extensions or spur dikes on the

south end of the reservation. These extensions could also include 2-foot rock armoring from the top of the

levee to the elevation of the river thalweg. As noted in the FEIS, replenishing the riverbed with sediment

would restore fish spawning, breeding, and rearing habitat in the river. It would also mean the return of a

more dynamic river that moves across the floodplain or that creates more side channel habitat. Where

flood control structures, such as the 1.5-mile levee, block the meander of the river, these benefits from

dam removal would be more limited. In addition, the natural shade, habitat complexity, and woody debris

recruitment that could take place in a relatively flat and wide portion of the river, such as along the levee,
Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries: Impacts of the Proposed Action

133

would not be part of the ecosystem here because of the unnatural slope, rock armoring, and maintained

face of the levee. The extensions north and south would exacerbate the impact the levee would have on

fish habitat after dam removal. Options of mitigating these potential impacts, such as large woody debris

placement, are being investigated. 

Operations Impacts. Operating the Elwha water treatment plant would require the use and disposal of

treatment chemicals, including alum and polymers, in the form of settled solids. As high turbidity would

often correlate to high flow conditions, the system would remove the most sediment at the highest river

flows, and the return of settled solids would not induce a measurable increase in downstream turbidity.

However, even during lower flows, the solids portion of flow returned to the river would be small

compared to the average river flow, and impacts to fish would be negligible or minor. 

In addition to sediment, the solids returned to the river from the Elwha water treatment plant include

coagulants containing alum. Disposal would result in acute doses of aluminum of up to 0.75 mg/L, and

chronic doses of up to 0.087 mg/L. The polymer used by the Elwha water treatment plant to coagulate

solids is polyacrylamide (PAM). It has been shown to have adverse effects on fish at doses of 300 mg/L.

Recent tests have shown no adverse effects on aquatic life at 10 mg/L and have indicated that the addition

of sediments to PAM reduces toxicity (URS 2002c). The use of PAM at the Elwha water treatment plant

is expected to be less than 10 mg/L, and probably in the range of 1 to 5 mg/L. The residuals are also going

to be at their highest volume when dam removal is ongoing. During this period, aquatic invertebrates and

fish would experience very high mortalities, and the disposal of additional solids, alum, or PAM would

not have much additional effect. Ultimately, high river flows would disperse this material within the

marine environment to levels that would not be toxic or otherwise adverse.

As the dewatered reservoirs stabilized upstream over time, turbidity would return to pre-dam conditions,

varying between 0.1 and 3,000 NTUs. This is expected to occur within six years of the dams’ removal

(see Table 17, page 110). Because turbidities would be ever lower in the river, the volume of treatment

residuals would also continue to decrease. When turbidities have stabilized to the range expected under

pre-dam conditions, it is anticipated that facility ownership would transfer to the City of Port Angeles.

Treatment residuals would likely be put in a landfill at that time. 

Operation of the hatcheries would also contribute organic material and low concentrations of chemicals

(e.g., formalin) used to keep fish disease free to surface water, as they do now. However, fish do not show

any impact now from these releases, and they are not expected to be affected by continued use. 

It is possible that actions associated with fisheries mitigation or revegetation could also have temporary

adverse effects on water quality before, during, or for a period of three to five years following dam

removal. For instance, heavy equipment could be used to grade the reservoirs, move heavy debris, arrange

logs, etc. The National Park Service may need to apply herbicides, fertilizers, and soil treatments, such as

mulch or other additives. These actions could result in the same kinds of impacts as described above (i.e.,

increases in turbidity or small concentrations of fuels or chemicals). Using best management practices

would minimize the impacts of these activities, but impacts to fish could still be negligible or minor. Fish

species most likely to be affected would be those rearing year-round in the river, including juvenile coho

salmon, rainbow and steelhead trout, and bull trout (see “Species of Special Concern”). 

Cumulative Impacts

The same adverse cumulative impacts described for the no-action alternative would apply to the proposed

action. However, anadromous fish species would also experience major adverse impacts initially and then
Impacts

134

major long-term benefits from dam removal and the restoration of spawning and rearing habitat to predam conditions under this alternative. 

Conclusion

Fish in the Elwha River or Morse Creek could experience some short-term pulses of turbidity from

accidental releases at construction sites, during storm events, and from in-river work. The impacts would

be short term and negligible to minor. Additional negligible to minor impacts from the short-term or

permanent loss of streamside vegetation as fish habitat would be possible from construction, as well as

from extending the federal levee. Replacing the rock diversion structure would cause temporary, minor,

adverse impacts from turbidity and the loss of spawning gravel, but it would ultimately result in minor to

moderate benefits for anadromous fish because of the installation of fish passage and state-of-the-art

bypass facilities. Operation of the Elwha water treatment plant would have no more than negligible

additional effects from the release of solids and coagulation chemicals over impacts from dam removal,

which would occur simultaneously with these releases. Cumulative major adverse impacts from sediment

released during dam removal over a three to five year period would occur. Long-term cumulative impacts

from ocean fishing, climate changes, and hatchery production would continue. No impairment of park

fish resources would occur as a result of the mitigation activities described in the proposed action.

Soils

Soils in the project area have experienced a variety of impacts related to the construction of the dams,

roads, utilities, fish hatcheries, and residential development. Please refer to the “Affected Environment”

chapter for a description of the soils that occur in the study area.

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

Data from NPS and consultant’s reports, as well as the “Soil Survey for Clallam County Area,” (SCS

1987), were reviewed in order to assess impacts to soils within the study area. For this analysis, impacts

and benefits of proposals are described in terms of intensity and duration. General definitions related to

intensity and duration of impacts to soils are presented below. 

Negligible — The impact would be barely perceptible or measurable; it would be confined to small

areas. 

Minor — The impact would be perceptible, measurable, and localized. 

Moderate — The impact would be clearly detectable, and it could have appreciable localized effect on

the resource and the potential to become major. 

Major — The impact would have a substantial, highly noticeable influence on the resource over a

large area.

As previously discussed, an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it

would have a major adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or
Soils: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

135

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

It is likely that the construction of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams and the resulting reservoirs

created major adverse impacts to soils in the area addressed in the 1996 FEIS both because of the size of

the project and because large construction projects in the early 20th century did not typically employ

measures designed to protect resources. Construction activities at and around the dam sites and the filling

of the reservoirs resulted in major changes to soils, including displacement, filling, compaction, and

inundation. 

Implementation of the no-action alternative would continue these large-scale, adverse impacts to soils,

and no mitigation measures would be taken to protect downstream users from water quality or other

adverse effects. Under the no-action alternative the redistribution of sediments up and down the Elwha

River and the revegetation of the portion of the river now inundated by the reservoirs would not take

place. 

The continuing use and maintenance of roadways and other developments that support dam operations

contribute to ongoing soil erosion, particularly in areas characterized by steep and/or unstable slopes.

However, as a result of the use of appropriate drainage, slope stabilization, and erosion control measures

in maintenance and improvement activities (currently required by federal, state, and county regulations),

it is likely that localized, long-term impacts to soils would be minor in intensity.

Several facilities would continue as they are now. These include the DCWA well field and access road,

the existing WDFW fish-rearing channel, the industrial channel and the Port Angeles Ranney collector

and treatment facility at RM 2.8–3.0 (and the access roads), the access to and development of the existing

rock diversion structure, and the development of the tribal hatchery. In addition, many thousands of cubic

yards of soil were displaced from the east side of the Elwha River to build the 1.5-mile-long federal levee

and private levee at the river mouth. Each of these has already had some impact on soils.

Cumulative Impacts

Developments on the slopes of roads or other facilities have often been at risk of landslides or other soil

loss due to the relatively saturated nature of the soils in the area. In addition, other developments at the

dam site or in the study area, including residences and utilities, have resulted in the removal and in some

cases destabilization and loss of soils. 

Conclusion

Building the dams and inundating the reservoirs resulted in major changes and adverse impacts to soils as

a result of excavation, compaction, and inundation. These impacts would continue, as would minor to

moderate impacts from several existing facilities. Because the affected soils are not parkwide, the effects

would not result in an impairment of park values or resources.
Impacts

136

Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Analysis

The types of impacts on soils include:

• Erosion — the loss of soil from a site or its natural location, typically through wind, rain, gravity,

etc. Erosion is a common impact resulting from ground disturbance activities associated with

development and is hastened by clearing and grading activities. 

• Displacement — stockpiling or removing soil from its natural location, typically resulting in the

loss of the nutrient surface layer and soil profile/structure disruption. Activities that result in

displacement include ground disturbance such as excavation, grading, and drilling.

• Compaction — compression of soils. Compaction can cause reduced water infiltration / permeability, decreased water storage capability, reduced aeration of the soil, and increases in surface

runoff and soil erosion (Cole and Landres 1995). The use of heavy equipment can result in soil

compaction. 

• Filling — introduction of new materials over existing soils, typically to raise or level grade.

• Contamination — introduction of toxic/hazardous materials to the soil. The presence of toxic /

hazardous materials associated with facility and construction equipment operations increases the

likelihood of accidental soil contamination. Leaks and breaks in equipment and hazardous material containers can contaminate soils as well as adjacent vegetation and waterways, although standard best management practices (including frequent machinery inspections and the implementation of established emergency procedures for spills) substantially mitigate the possibility for

adverse effects to soils by contamination. 

In addition, the timing of construction activities could substantially mitigate impacts to soils in the study

area. Soils are most susceptible to damage during spring when they are saturated and easily disturbed.

Avoiding areas prone to adverse soil impacts during these times can mitigate potentially harmful effects

to soils. Best management practices would be implemented during implementation of the proposed action

(see appendix A). 

Proposed actions with the potential to impact soils would include the following: 

• water quality/supply mitigation for industrial customers and fisheries, the Port Angeles municipal

water supply, and the Dry Creek Water Association

• flood control mitigation and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe wastewater treatment 

• fish restoration

• revegetation 

Water Quality / Water Supply. Industrial Customers and Fisheries — Proposed mitigation measures

related to industrial customers and fisheries include design changes to the Elwha water treatment plant,

removal of existing diversion and intake structures, construction of new diversion and intake structures, and

construction of new distribution pipelines. Their description and potential impacts to soils follow. 

Soils in the vicinity of RM 2.8–3.0 would be graded, removed, and compacted through the use of heavy

equipment to build the Elwha water treatment plant, splitting structure, pipelines to the hatchery and the

Port Angeles water treatment plant, and other smaller scale support features for the treatment plant or the

rearing channel. The rearing channel would remain in place, and the Port Angeles Ranney collector would

be floodproofed. New wells to support the use of the rearing channel during dam removal would be
Soils: Impacts of the Proposed Action

137

drilled. In addition, the portion of the access road to both the Ranney collector and the rearing channel

buildings (which parallels the rearing channel) would be strengthened and elevated in some spots.

Potential impacts to soils as a result of these actions include vegetation clearing, grading or excavation,

compaction, filling, and contamination. Soil loss from excavation and grading would be a permanent

impact, and compaction from heavy equipment would be a long-term impact, but other impacts would be

temporary and could be mitigated. Heavy equipment expected to be used on site includes excavating

equipment, concrete trucks, flatbed equipment and delivery trucks, power utility trucks, trash trucks, and

worker transportation vehicles. Up to 50 truck trips per day would be required to complete construction of

the Elwha water treatment plant. Compaction of soils from the use of heavy equipment for construction

would result in minor, site-specific impacts, but the effects would be long term in duration. 

The use of heavy construction equipment, as well as the transport, use, and storage of chemicals (such as

alum, polymers, and caustic soda) at the new plant, could result in soil contamination as a result of spills

or leaks. Such impacts would most likely be site-specific, negligible to minor, and short term as long as

appropriate spill cleanup and remediation procedures were employed (see appendix A). Erosion of loose

soils during construction would also be likely. The use of best management practices, such as berming the

site to capture eroded soils or fuel leaks, would mitigate these effects. Construction contractors would be

responsible for erosion control plans; resident construction inspectors would monitor their effectiveness

and would alert the contractor of problems. If the best management practices were effectively

implemented, soil erosion and contamination could be minimized to negligible to minor, site-specific,

short-term impacts. Timely and appropriate revegetation of the construction areas would further minimize

erosion at the site. 

The removal of the existing rock diversion structure and intake structures at RM 3.5 would require earthdisturbing activities to be conducted in the water as well as on the streambank, where erosion would be

likely. The use of heavy equipment to remove the structures would have the potential to result in soil

displacement, erosion, and contamination. The appropriate use of erosion control techniques as addressed

in the best management practices (appendix A), coupled with the likely state and federal permitting

requirements for erosion and sediment control for work in and around water, would limit the adverse

impacts to soils in the area to minor, site-specific, and short term.

Constructing a new control weir and intake structure 225 feet upstream of the existing rock diversion

structure would have similar effects as the removal of the existing facilities. A cofferdam would be used

to construct new facilities “in the dry” and to the extent it is possible, work would be completed during

lowest flow conditions. However, excavation of the streambed and area where the control weir would tie

into both the east and west banks of the river would be required. Excavated soil would be permanently

lost; however, since the loss would be localized, the impact would be minor. Implementation of best

management practices and reseeding where possible on the riverbanks and along the associated pipeline

or access routes would keep impacts from erosion to a minimum. 

Construction activities at both of these in-water sites would require state and federal permitting, which

could include conditions beyond the best management practices designed to minimize soil erosion and

water quality impacts. These efforts, coupled with the monitoring activities of the construction inspector,

are expected to result in minor, site-specific, short-term impacts to soils. Timely and appropriate

revegetation of the construction areas would further minimize erosion at the site.

Municipal Customers — The proposed Port Angeles water treatment plant would be on the southern end

of the city’s existing landfill site, which is scheduled for closure in 2006. This approximately 14-acre site

has undergone substantial modification, and it currently contains a borrow pit, piles of yard waste and
Impacts

138

mulch, two stormwater detention/sediment settling ponds, one 1,000-gallon underground storage tank

(related to dewatering of biosolids), and asphalt-paved and dirt access driveways. A single-story metal

frame and shell structure used for storage and processing treatment plant biosolids and composted yard

waste is also located on the southwest portion of the property (URS 2002a). The topsoil in the northern

section of the site has been bladed off, exposing sands and gravels, while the central and southern

portions are covered by topsoil with some vegetation (URS 2003h). Construction debris from demolition

of a grocery store was buried beneath the western potion of the site, although no evidence of this is

apparent today. No evidence of hazardous materials or wastes was found during a 2002 survey of the site

(URS 2002a).

In general, the soil profile at the site consists of 2 to 5 feet of fill soil of variable nature and condition

underlain by a native deposit of dense silty sand and gravel to a depth of at least 40 feet. The native soil

appears to be glacial outwash or glacial drift. The central and southern portion of the site is covered with

1 to 2 feet of topsoil consisting of black silt with root mats. Along the northern portion of the property this

topsoil has been stripped away. Samples near the future sludge drying beds indicate low permeability.

The soil is generally dense, and liquefaction during a seismic event is not anticipated. On-site soils are

generally re-usable as fill for the recycle storage pond. 

Potential impacts to soils at the proposed water treatment plant site include displacement (grading,

leveling), compaction, contamination, and filling activities, all of which could create adverse impacts to

soils. These impacts could occur at the actual construction site, as well as within offsite staging and

access areas, should any be necessary. Compared to the substantial impacts from past development,

effects from construction on disturbed soils would likely be negligible to minor and site-specific. The

soils at the site are considered slightly or moderately erodible (URS 2003e). On- and offsite erosion

impacts could be minimized through the use of appropriate drainage and erosion control techniques and

regular monitoring (see appendix A). 

The use of heavy construction equipment, as well as the transport, use, and storage of chemicals at the

completed treatment facility, would both carry the potential for soil contamination through spills and

leaks. Alum, caustic soda, and sodium hypochlorite would be stored on site and used to treat municipal

water. Standard design practice provides for both structural and operational containment of spills

wherever the chemicals are stored or used. This is generally accomplished by grading the floor surface,

providing small berms around equipment, providing storage for absorbent materials immediately nearby,

as well as other measures so that there would be no escapes under normal circumstances.

The best management practices specifically address such accidental contamination. During construction,

hazardous spill cleanup materials would be on site at all times, and machinery maintenance would be

conducted well away from the river. Prior to starting work each day, all machinery would be inspected for

leaks, and repairs would be made before the equipment was used again. Impacts to soils would likely be

site-specific, negligible to minor, and short term if the contamination was quickly contained and

remediated. In addition, a process control and monitoring laboratory on site once the plant was

operational would further decrease the possibility of chemical contamination of soils.

Dry Creek Water Association — As noted in the “Alternatives” chapter, three options are available for the

Dry Creek Water Association during and following dam removal: 

1. Floodproofing Existing Well Facilities: Constructing floodproofing features, such as raising the

existing well field and access roads, would involve ground-disturbing activities (soil

displacement, vegetation clearing, erosion, filling, compaction, etc.). However, due to previous

disturbance (grading) at the well site and along the access road, impacts to soils would probably
Soils: Impacts of the Proposed Action

139

be site-specific, negligible to minor, and long term under this option. In addition, the

implementation of best management practices would further minimize impacts to soils.

2. Constructing an Alternative Well Field — The alternative well field location is on a low terrace

on the west bank of the Elwha River. Much of the area consists of exposed cobbles scoured by

the Elwha River, with small areas of sediment and vegetation (URS 2002b). Use of this site

would require the floodproofing of any building structure (new control and chlorination building,

new electrical supply), wellheads, and access roads (all to be elevated above the 100-year flood).

Building structures might be located on the hillside above the 100-year flood area. Drilling,

access, and staging activities could result in soil displacement (grading), vegetation clearing,

filling, and drainage improvements along the access road. Typical well construction could include

the use of a variety of heavy trucks (well drilling, premix concrete, flatbed pipe, equipment

delivery, power utility, trash, and worker transportation), all of which could cause soil

compaction. As the area is situated in a floodplain which either now sustains substantial scouring

or would increase following dam removal, impacts to soils as a result of using this site would

probably be minor, site-specific, and long term. 

Selection of this option would also require the demolition of the existing well field and facilities,

as well as raising or removing an adjacent residence and septic system. Demolition activities,

particularly with the use of heavy equipment, would have the potential to cause erosion,

displacement, and compaction. If appropriate erosion control methods were employed, impacts

from this action would likely be negligible to minor and site-specific. Where appropriate,

revegetation of the disturbed area would further minimize impacts. 

In addition, a new distribution pipeline would have to be constructed. Five optional distribution

routes are currently being examined (URS 2003a). All of them would result in impacts to varying

degrees related to slope stabilization, erosion, soil displacement (trenching), filling, vegetation

clearing, and soil contamination (at construction sites and staging and access areas). Depending

on the route selected and the methods of construction, adverse impacts to soils could range from

minor to moderate. Appropriate use of drainage and erosion control techniques, as well as the

implementation of the best management practices (appendix A) and onsite monitoring, could

minimize impacts to soils. If the pipeline was constructed in an existing road right-of-way,

impacts to soils would be negligible, localized, and long term.

3. Connecting to the City of Port Angeles Water System: This option includes the construction of a

pump station and installation of 3,000 feet of waterline, both of which would be in the Airport

Road right-of-way (URS 2003a). No access improvements are anticipated, although road repairs

might be necessary as a result of installation. Due to the impacted nature of the Airport Road

right-of-way, this option would result in negligible, site-specific impacts to soils. 

Flood Control. During the original construction of the federal levee in 1988 a gravel road was built from

the southern terminus of the levee southeast to the valley bluffs. As described in the “Alternatives”

chapter, one option for providing existing levels of flood protection for residents and for the tribal fish

hatchery following dam removal would be to modify this road as a flood control facility sufficient to

resist outflanking of the river. The levee might be extended south along an existing terrace or be extended

as a series of spur dikes and deflection structures. The levee would also be extended north to provide

protection from an increased flood stage for residents near the mouth of the river. A large section of the

levee would need to be reinforced to withstand erosion forces from the river once sediment was restored

to this part of the floodplain. Across the river from the northern portion of the federal levee, modifications

to a private levee to maintain existing flood protection would be needed. Raising and strengthening, or

removing the levee and raising homes, are options for this area.
Impacts

140

Each of these actions would involve impacts to soils through excavations and grading, but primarily from

filling and the compaction of filled material. Strengthening or raising the levees would be conducted in

areas where soils have been previously modified. In this case, impacts to soils on site are expected to be

negligible and site-specific, although impacts to borrow pits where additional soil would be taken could

be more substantial. Extending the levee to the north and south would cross land where such disturbance

currently does not exist. The impact to the soils would be clearly noticeable along the river side, where an

armored toe would be installed to the elevation of the river thalweg. Because impacts would remain

localized, they would be moderate, but would be very long term or permanent. Compaction of soils

underneath the extended levee would also be a permanent or very long-term impact. Some of the gravel

used to extend the levees would likely come from borrow pits, primarily those within a 25-mile radius of

the building site. The volume of gravel needed to provide current levels of flood protection by extending

the federal levee to the north and south, and to extend the private levee a few hundred feet would depend

on the selected alternative. Use of appropriate drainage and erosion control measures (see appendix A)

would minimize the potential impact to soils. Existing levee access roads would be maintained.

The impact to the soils in these areas would probably be no more than minor, however, as they would

primarily be covered, rather than excavated or removed, and the extent of the impact would remain

localized.

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Wastewater Treatment. As noted in the “Alternatives” chapter, additional

development on the reservation and the expected rise in groundwater tables following dam removal have

led the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe to decide to hook up with the Port Angeles treatment facility. A

collection system would send collected wastewater to a pumping facility east of Stratton Road (see the

“Proposed Wastewater Alignments” map, page 36). From here, a pipeline would carry the wastewater to a

connection point with the city’s sewer. As with other construction projects identified above, installing a

collection system and approximately 2.5 miles of pipeline would result in the excavation and removal of

soils. To minimize soil compaction, excavation would occur to the extent possible during the dry season.

On the valley floor alluvial soils range from Puget Sound silt loam to typic xerofluvents. On the bluffs

glacial till soils (predominantly Clallam) have a compacted hard pan layer ranging from 20 to 40 inches

thick and lying approximately 28 inches below the surface. The filling of existing septic systems with

sand could have some localized negligible to minor benefit to soils. 

It is possible, but unlikely, that the pipeline could malfunction during its lifetime, with resulting

contamination of the surrounding soils. Construction setback between the wastewater and drinking water

pipelines and pipe design specifications would comply with the Washington State Department of Ecology

standards. Pipeline construction activities would comply with Clallam County stormwater regulations off

the reservation and would be consistent with those regulations on the reservation. Due to the belowgrade

construction, surface environmental impacts would be short term and minor.

Actions Related to Fish Restoration. Since the publication of the 1996 FEIS, the bull trout and Puget

Sound chinook salmon have been listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. As a

result, additional mitigation measures for the fish are now required, some of which have the potential to

impact soils within the study area. 

To ensure stock production of the chinook salmon, some hatchery operations would be shifted to Morse

Creek during dam removal, including the annual installation of an adult capture weir (fish trap) likely

located 1,000 to 3,300 feet downstream of U.S. 101. This activity could involve the construction of

structures at the new site, along with any required access roads and staging areas. These actions would

likely involve vegetation clearing and soil displacement (grading, minor excavation), which have the

potential to adversely impact soils in and around riparian areas. The magnitude of impacts would depend on
Soils: Impacts of the Proposed Action

141

the methods employed, equipment used, and activity location. Implementation of best management

practices would likely result in negligible to minor, site-specific, and short-term impacts on soils in the area.

It is also likely that Washington State and federal permitting requirements would include conditions that

substantially limit the potential for erosion and sediment transport, further mitigating the impacts. 

Mitigation measures included by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its “Biological Opinion” for the

incidental take permit for bull trout require the replacement or modification of Hot Springs Road culverts

that limit/block access to tributaries that could be used by the fish (USFWS 2000). These actions would

involve vegetation clearing and grading/excavation activities, with the potential to adversely impact soils

at these sites, primarily through erosion. Depending on the method of construction, the equipment used,

and the location of these activities, the potential for minor, site-specific adverse effects to soils exists.

Best management practices, on-site monitoring, and revegetation of the impacted area would further

mitigate these effects. Moreover, state and federal permitting requirements for work in and around

waterbodies would likely also reduce the potential for soil impacts.

Options for continuing to provide tribal fish hatchery support for fish restoration include modifying the

existing location or building a new hatchery on the Halberg property. Soils just to the north of this

addition were surveyed and found to be Puget silt loam underlain by permeable, gravelly coarse sand. The

soil is quite permeable and ranges from a few inches to several feet thick (Berryman & Henigar 2003). As

with other construction activities, either adding on to the existing hatchery and improving drainage, or

building a new facility, would require excavation. A new facility would require grading, and heavy

equipment would result in compaction and possibly some small contamination of soils from fuel leaks or

spills. Erosion at the construction site would be likely, but best management practices would contain

eroded soils and minimize any erosion that did take place. Impacts would be minor because of the

implementation of these practices. 

Actions Related to Revegetation. Since the publication of the FEIS, studies show that more intense

revegetation efforts might be required than originally believed (e.g., manual labor might be inadequate).

The proposal for a greater use of mechanized equipment and additional helicopters for revegetation has

increased the potential for soil impacts in the area because additional ground disturbance is likely. 

The use of heavy equipment and helicopters to apply soil amendments, transport crews, and perform other

actions might require construction staging areas, access roads, and/or landing pads. Clearing vegetation,

grading, or filling in these areas could result in adverse impacts of unknown magnitude to soils,

depending on location. Implementation of best management practices during construction, including onsite

monitoring of earth-disturbing activities where appropriate, would mitigate these effects to minor, sitespecific, and short term. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts of an unknown magnitude, possibly minor to moderate in intensity, are possible as a

result of proposed mitigations. These ongoing effects would be long term and local to possibly regional in

scope. A beneficial impact is that the city would not need to import soil to help close the landfill facility

since that material would be mined on site and stockpiled prior to construction of the municipal treatment

plant and the city’s planned solid waste transfer station.
Impacts

142

Conclusion

Nearly all proposed mitigation activities would result in some type of ground-disturbing impact to soils.

Impacts from excavation and removal of soils would be permanent, but because they would be confined

to either particular locations or because the removals would occur in already disturbed areas, they would

primarily be minor in intensity. Some pipeline routes proposed for the Dry Creek Water Association and

possibly for the transmission of wastewater from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe could have up to

moderate effects from the removal of soil because of their length or location. Installing a toe to strengthen

the federal levee would result in moderate localized impacts. Compaction of soils from heavy equipment

at the Elwha and Port Angeles water treatment plant sites, as well as from extending the federal levee to

the north and south, would also be very long-term or permanent impacts. These would be localized and

minor as well. Erosion, which would occur at nearly all construction sites, and contamination, which

would be possible from fuel leaks or transport or use of treatment chemicals at the Elwha and Port

Angeles water treatment plants, would be minimized through the use of best management practices and a

spill response plan. With best management practices in place, impacts to soils from erosion or

contamination would be minor, site-specific, and temporary.

Cumulative impacts of the proposed action as a result of new facility development would likely create

minor impacts to soils, primarily in its ongoing contribution to erosion. 

The proposed actions would not result in impairment to any park soils.

Vegetation

Summary of Laws, Regulations, and Policies

Relevant NPS Management Policies for biological resources, including vegetation, state that human

impacts to native plants, populations, communities, and ecosystems, and the processes that sustain them,

are to be minimized (NPS 2000, sec. 4.4.1). NPS managers are allowed to manage biological resources

when intervention is needed to protect other park resources (sec. 4.1) or to accommodate necessary

development in parks (sec. 4.4.2). Most of the development proposed in this SEIS is outside Olympic

National Park boundaries, and NPS policies would not necessarily apply. Inside the park, the revegetation

of the reservoirs is consistent with NPS policies that encourage the restoration of native plant species to

parks (sec. 4.4.2.2).

One of the purposes of the park, as stated in a congressional report accompanying the park’s 1938

enabling legislation, is to preserve the finest sample of primeval forests of Sitka spruce, western hemlock,

Douglas-fir, and western red cedar in the entire United States (NPS 1989). The combination of abundant

moisture and a cool though moderate climate provides ideal circumstances for coniferous trees. The first

of the park’s five primary management goals is to conserve, maintain, and restore, where possible,

primary natural resources and those ecological relationships and processes that would prevail were it not

for the advent of modern civilization (NPS 1989). Individual management objectives within this goal

include the development of programs to reverse or mitigate adverse impacts from human actions, to

revegetate areas affected by human impacts, and to eliminate or control exotic plants that threaten native

plant communities.

Wetlands are regulated separately from other vegetation, both by the National Park Service and Clallam

County. Clallam County imposes buffers between construction and wetlands, which vary in size

depending on the quality of the wetland. 
Vegetation: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

143

The National Park Service follows the provisions of Executive Order 11990 and section 404 of the Clean

Water Act. The executive order requires no net loss of wetlands, and section 404 regulates the filling of

wetlands. The National Park Service’s Director’s Order #77-1 requires a statement of findings if wetlands

will be adversely affected by a project. In this case, because affected wetlands are low quality and/or

maintained or created through human intervention, no statement of findings is required. In addition, since

dam removal would create hundreds of acres of wetland and riparian vegetation, the overall impact is a

beneficial one. This is in keeping with Executive Order 11990 and with the National Park Service’s

implementation of that order, which strives for not only no loss, but a net gain in wetlands. 

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

Vegetation at specific sites affected by the proposed actions of the SEIS was examined through site visits

conducted by contractors to the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Park Service in February 2003

and by the Bureau of Reclamation in May and July 2003. 

The following definitions of impact thresholds were applied:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection throughout the study area, or it

would be slight, but detectable over a small and localized area.

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable throughout the study area, or it would be

apparent over a small and localized area.

Moderate — The impact would be apparent throughout the study area, or it would be noticeable and

quite adverse or beneficial over a small and localized area.

Major — The impact would be severe or highly beneficial throughout the study area.

As previously discussed, an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it

would have a major adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

The dam reservoirs inundated more than 5 linear miles or an estimated 534 acres of riparian habitat along

the Elwha River. Riparian habitat is a critical component of the overall hydrologic processes of the Elwha

ecosystem; its loss has been a major and adverse impact to park vegetation. In general, a natural riparian

zone connects montane headwaters with lowland terrains, providing avenues for the transfer of water,

nutrients, sediment, organic matter, and aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Gregory et al. 1991). A natural

riparian zone reduces the severity of flood events, acts as a buffer to pollution sources entering the river,

controls the loss of groundwater nutrients into the river, and provides important fish habitat and food

sources from overhanging vegetation and associated terrestrial insects. An additional 150 acres of upland

communities also were lost.
Impacts

144

As noted in the “Affected Environment,” riparian vegetation lies along the Elwha River both in the stretch

between RM 2.8 and 3.7, as well as in the floodplain to the west of the federal levee, and at the southern

and northern ends of the levee where extensions are proposed. Some of this vegetation is intact and

relatively undisturbed; for example, the floodplain west of the federal levee has no development. Recently

a side channel of the Elwha River carried enough water and was forceful enough to erode several hundred

feet of the levee during a 10-year flood event. The west slope of the access road from the single vehicle

bridge to the river passes by two seeps (see “Affected Environment”) where wetland species such as

skunk cabbage, Devil’s club, and Pacific bleeding heart grow. 

Although the forest and understory species on both banks between RM 2.8 and 3.7 indicate it is riparian

and flooded during high stage floods, the condition of the vegetation is spotty and generally poor.

Directly west of the rearing channel and industrial intake channel, the forest has been somewhat disturbed

by the development of facilities associated with the Ranney collector. To the north and east of this area,

and between the rearing channel and the industrial intake channel, the ground bears a cultivated lawn. To

the south of the Ranney collection facilities, and east of the industrial intake channel, some riparian forest

remains. 

Plant surveys of the eastern riverbank between RM 3.6 and 2.8 (from the proposed surface water intake

facility downstream to the north end of the proposed Elwha water treatment plant) found that it was well

used and somewhat disturbed by human trampling. The forest is very open, and much of the understory is

trampled and composed of nonnative, weedy species. In some areas of the riverbank, pulloffs and parking

areas have been created through use, and soils are quite compacted. Very young trees are also trampled,

and mature trees occur only a short distance away from the roads, facilities, and lawns. The condition of

vegetation on the western shore is similar. Although some intact riparian vegetation exists in patches

where thick vegetation limits human access, this stretch of river is generally easily reachable and well

used. Under the no-action alternative, these conditions would remain or worsen over time as recreational

use continued or increased.

The existing DCWA well field has been clear cut and is mown routinely around the pumping station.

Mixed forest exists around the perimeter of the site. These conditions would continue under the no-action

alternative until the lease expires on the well field. If the lease is not renewed, the mown area would be

periodically flooded and would return to riparian forest. The alternative well field location on the west

bank is also in the floodplain and is periodically overtopped during flood stage. As noted in the “Affected

Environment,” wetland ponds (former gravel pits) exist in this area of the river (RM 3.5–3.6). 

Farther downstream at the site of the federal levee, conditions are again variable. West of the levee

riparian forest on the floodplain comes close to reaching the levee’s western toe. The Lower Elwha

Klallam Tribe has designated 300 acres in this area as community forest land for natural flood abatement

and limited subsistence firewood use. East of the levee vegetation is mowed or grazed, or the area has

been developed. Farther east the property is covered with hardwood species, with an understory of

common weedy species. The no-action alternative would continue these conditions, as the area would be

maintained for hatchery use in the foreseeable future. 

North of the levee a roadway, the tribal hatchery outfall, and other development exist. To the south is the

Halberg property with second- and third-growth forest. As noted in the “Affected Environment,”

forestland on the east side of this property has been relatively undisturbed and has not been developed for

housing. Native vegetation on the west side has been disturbed by a ranch, corrals, and an orchard. Under

the no-action alternative the area would either remain as it is or be developed for housing.
Vegetation: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

145

Wetlands modulate river flows during storm events, stabilize banks and erosion, trap sediments, retain

nutrients, provide wildlife habitat, and facilitate energy and nutrient flows (Brinson et al. 1981; Adamus

and Stockwell 1983). A total of 48 acres of vegetated wetlands were inundated by the reservoirs, and an

additional 122 acres of unvegetated wet river channel and gravel bars were also covered. In addition,

armoring the river channel between the reservoirs and below the Elwha Dam has reduced overflow areas

and backwaters that create and maintain small riverside wetlands. These are considered major losses to

the ecosystem, and they would continue under the no-action alternative.

Known wetlands in the project area analyzed for this SEIS, as described in the “Affected Environment,”

include two large, high-quality wetlands east of the existing industrial intake channel and several smaller

wetlands along proposed pipeline routes, access roads, or in the vicinity of the DCWA well field, the

alternative well field site, or along pipeline locations. Four smaller wetlands near the industrial channel

(where the Elwha water treatment plant would be built) are lower quality wetlands, primarily because

they are smaller. This is also true of the forested and emergent wetlands along road or pipeline corridors.

A series of water-filled gravel pits near the alternative DCWA well field site are generally not vegetated,

although the northernmost one is surrounded by emergent vegetation. Because they are in the floodplain,

vegetative growth may be periodically removed; therefore, diversity of plant and animal life may be quite

low. These water-filled gravel pits are not within the impact area for the DCWA alternative well field.

The no-action alternative would, in effect, preserve these isolated wetlands, but it would also continue the

inundation of hundreds of acres of former wetlands. Additional information on the impact of the dams

and their removal on wetlands (such as backwater wetlands and side channels) is available in the

“Flooding” section of this SEIS, as well as the FEIS.

Vegetation at the site of the Port Angeles water treatment plant is upland regrowth mixed forest, and

vegetation at the Morse Creek hatchery site and along proposed pipeline routes is generally disturbed and

weedy. At the water treatment plant a graveled private road separates a small wet drainage on the south

side from the remainder of the site, and numerous old roads crisscross the forested part of the plant site.

Under the no-action alternative these conditions would likely continue, although it is unknown how the

City of Port Angeles would manage the water treatment plant or Morse Creek sites in the future.

The upland area near the Morse Creek hydropower plant is about 650 feet from Morse Creek and is

dominated by grasses and a few deciduous trees. 

Cumulative Impacts

Beyond the impacts described above, vegetation in the project area has been altered through logging and

may have been changed through clearing for development, agriculture, roads, or other reasons.

Conclusion

The reservoirs have had major adverse effects on vegetation through the inundation of more than 700

acres, much of it riparian and wetland vegetation. Vegetation in the study area for this SEIS is mostly

disturbed, although small patches of riparian forest are relatively unaffected and may be restored

following dam removal. Two large, high-quality wetlands and several small, less diverse wetlands are

also in the study area. The no-action alternative would continue the current state of each of these

vegetation types. Although the impacts of the dams on riparian vegetation have been severe, no

impairment of park resources or values has occurred as a result.
Impacts

146

Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Analysis

In general terms, mitigation actions could affect vegetation as a result of ground disturbance (trenching,

clearing, grading, drilling) and filling. Site-specific impacts are discussed below. 

Dry Creek Water Association. Farthest south along the river in the study area are the existing and

proposed DCWA well fields (RM 3.6–3.7). As previously described, options under consideration for

DCWA water mitigation include floodproofing the existing well field, developing an alternative well field

site, and connecting to the City of Port Angeles system. The alternative well field site is on the opposite

side of the river from DCWA users, so a pipeline would be required along one of five routes currently

being considered. 

1. Floodproofing the Existing Well Field — Required floodproofing and elevation of the wellheads

at the existing well field would result in filling some riparian floodplain habitat (URS 2003a). In

addition to fill, trees and brush would be cut, and soils would be graded and excavated for the

placement of scour protection. Impacts would be localized, minor to moderate, and long term

(i.e., for the life of the well field).

2. Constructing an Alternative Well Field — The alternative well field would occupy a low terrace

on the west bank of the Elwha River within the 100-year floodplain. The area might require

floodproofing, which would involve elevating an area for a building and well(s), plus an access

road. Structures could be located on the hillside above the 100 year flood area. The floodplain

contains a riparian forest dominated by western red cedar. The use of this site would not be likely

to impact any upland areas, but two small forested wetlands along the access road would be

disrupted. These wetlands likely formed from the impounding of upslope seeps caused by the

road itself; they are both small and have little natural functionality. Using this site would have

more severe effects on the floodplain riparian zone because the site would have to be raised several feet to provide flood protection. Vegetation would need to be cut, soils graded and excavated,

and fill placed in the floodplain. Water-filled gravel pits in the vicinity could be filled and permanently lost. The extent of the impact to the floodplain riparian and wetland vegetation would

likely be permanent and moderately adverse. Constructing an access road would have a minor,

permanent, adverse impact on forested wetland vegetation.

Under this option a new pipeline would be needed along one of five routes to carry water back

across the river to users. 

• Alternative route A (along existing shoulders and rights-of-way that are already disturbed to

the Highway 112 bridge) would have negligible impacts to upland vegetation. Construction

along Elwha River Road could require removing a few trees adjacent to the road due to a

narrow shoulder. This alignment would also disrupt two small forested wetlands along the

site access road, resulting in negligible to minor impacts that would be long term or

potentially permanent.

• Alternative route B (similar to route A but along a cross-country route to the bridge crossing

at Highway 112) would require the removal of a few trees and could affect small forested

wetlands along the cross-country portion of the alignment, with negligible to minor, short- to

long-term impacts to this vegetative type.

• Alternative route C (along the site access road to the one-lane bridge to a DCWA connection

point at Laird Road) would have limited impacts because construction would take place

primarily within the footprint or shoulder of road rights-of-way. Construction could require

the avoidance of some emergent wetlands along the Elwha River Road shoulder and the
Vegetation: Impacts of the Proposed Action

147

removal of a few trees due to the narrow shoulder. This route is not likely to impact any

riparian areas, and impacts to vegetation would be negligible or minor, but potentially long

term.

• Alternative route D (a new river crossing, either under the river or on a bridge) would

traverse riparian forest for a small section of pipeline and require the removal of brush along

the powerline corridor as it crossed to the river in the vicinity of the well sites. Otherwise

impacts would be primarily to aquatic vegetation in the riverbed. This pipeline route would

have no more than negligible, short-term impacts to vegetation.

• Alternative route E (along the route of a new intake structure for the Elwha water treatment

plant) would likely not have any additional detrimental impacts to wetland or upland

vegetation beyond those associated with the intake structure, with the removal of a few trees

required. It would also require avoidance of emergent wetlands along Elwha River Road.

This alignment would affect riparian vegetation, as the removal of large riparian trees and

excavation near the river would be required. Impacts to vegetation would be minor and long

term until the trees could re-grow.

3. Connecting to the City of Port Angeles Municipal Water System — This option would require a

connecting pipeline along Airport Road, which is already disturbed according to a May 2003

plant survey by Bureau of Reclamation staff. Species include a mix of conifers and hardwoods, as

well as understory typical of this mixed forest. A pipeline along the road would require the

removal of some of this vegetation. Weedy species would recolonize the area within the first year

after construction. Overall, impacts to vegetation would be minor and temporary. 

Elwha Heights Subdivision. The proposed action includes replacing an existing 4-inch pipeline with a 6-

inch pipeline for a distance of about 4,000 feet. Because the replacement would take place along an

existing highly disturbed road, the impact to vegetation generally would be negligible or minor. Displaced

species would primarily be exotic species, or grasses and forbs that would grow back quickly. 

Six small wetlands as described in the “Affected Environment” would also be potentially disturbed. Three

of these small wetlands lie along the side of the roads where the pipeline would be replaced. Two are very

small emergent wetlands that do not likely retain much function as wildlife habitat or other values. A third

is also quite small, but contains species of shrub and scrub that may be more unique. The remaining three

small wetlands lie in the clearcut field between DCWA residences and the Elwha Heights subdivision.

Careful routing could avoid these wetlands, although Clallam County does require buffers for natural

wetlands of higher quality (75 feet for class III wetlands), which could make alignment more difficult.

Imposition of the buffers for all six wetlands would require realignment and the installation of new

pipeline around the wetlands that lie along Rife and Walker Ranch Roads, as well as realignment of the

proposed new section of pipe through the clearcut field. Offsite mitigation would also be possible. Either

would reduce impacts to vegetation to negligible. However, not undertaking mitigation and using the

existing proposed alignment might result in temporary disturbance or even permanent loss of five class III

wetlands and one class II wetland, a negligible to minor adverse impact.

Diversion, Surface Water Intake Facility, and the Elwha Water Treatment Plant. As previously

noted, several mitigation facilities would be built to supply industrial and hatchery customers with water

during and following dam removal, including constructing a new Elwha water treatment plant, replacing a

diversion and surface water intake facility, and constructing distribution facilities. 

The site of the existing intake and diversion structure is vegetated with mixed conifer / deciduous forest. The

proposed replacement control weir and intake would be about 225 feet upstream, and vegetation on the west

side of the river at this point is similar. On the east side the shoreline is a sheer unvegetated cliff. Staging

areas to remove the existing diversion and intake structure would be near the river and would result in the
Impacts

148

temporary loss of some riparian vegetation. Constructing the new control weir and intake structure would

require blasting and work in the river channel. However, water would be diverted during this work through

the use of a temporary channel on the western shore. Several individual trees (hemlock, Douglas-fir, and

western red cedar) would be removed to dig the temporary channel. This could be a noticeable, minor to

moderate impact in this location. In addition to the impact of the construction of the diversion channel,

riparian vegetation on the western shore of the river in this location would be trampled by heavy equipment,

but would grow back within one to two years. The loss of shrubs and understory riparian vegetation from

staging and the use of equipment to construct the intake channel would be a minor, short-term impact.

Riparian vegetation could regrow along the banks now flooded by flows upstream of the existing diversion

facility, and it could be flooded on the western bank upstream of the new control weir. Compared to the noaction alternative, the impact would be negligible. 

Two small shrub/scrub wetlands grow in the vicinity of the proposed intake facility. One is on the west bank

of the river near the current intake. Removal of the existing intake would likely result in the destruction of

the wetland, which may be located here because of the intake itself. Fill might also be required in this area to

prepare it for the construction of the new intake. The second wetland lies on the north end of a mid-channel

island downstream from the current rock dam. Excavation of the island would be required to achieve the

needed grade for the fish control weir. The wetland would be lost as a result. However, it is likely that this

wetland is “man-made” in the sense that the island itself was formed from material in the upstream scour

hole, which is directly downstream of the rock diversion structure. Loss of both this wetland and the one

adjacent to the existing diversion structure would have negligible or minor impacts on vegetation. 

Vegetation in the area of the proposed Elwha water treatment plant primarily consists of a second-growth,

mixed conifer / deciduous forest. There is a narrow strip of scrub/shrub habitat along the west side of the

gravel road that parallels the fish-rearing channel. The west slope of the access road from the one-lane

bridge down to the river has a very wet area fed by springs or seeps dominated by herbaceous species.

Vegetation around the fish-rearing channel, the industrial channel, and the pipeline is mowed or maintained

from the edge of the access roads down into the channels or to the pipeline. The proposed action would

require clearing/grading, trenching/excavating, and filling, which would result in the removal of mature

trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species. In areas affected by construction activities, there would be minor,

temporary, adverse effects on vegetation. Because most of the species are common both up- and

downstream, shrubs and herbaceous species would become reestablished within a few years. In areas

covered by permanent facilities, the proposed action would have minor to moderate, site-specific, adverse

impacts due to the permanent loss of vegetation. 

Wetlands occur on site or very nearby the Elwha water treatment plant. Four of these wetlands (at the

northern end of the existing industrial channel, along the eastern bank, along the southernmost overflow

channel, and at the eastern end of the northernmost overflow channel) are small and of lesser quality. They

may be fed by the industrial channel and overflow channels and are probably unregulated by Clallam

County or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a result, so no permit would be required to alter them. Two

additional larger and higher quality wetlands lie to the east of the industrial intake channel, outside the area

slated for development. However, construction could have indirect effects on these wetlands as a result of

increases in turbidity, engine emissions, leaks of petroleum products, and the noise and presence of humans

during construction. It is because of these indirect impacts that Clallam County imposes a 200-foot buffer

between Class 1 wetlands and any construction or operation activities. If such a buffer was imposed,

impacts to wetland vegetation would be negligible to minor. Eliminating these wetlands, reducing their size,

or averaging the required buffer among wetlands to facilitate construction, could result in temporary,

moderate impacts.
Vegetation: Impacts of the Proposed Action

149

Levees, Tribal Hatchery, and Wastewater Treatment. Raising, strengthening, and/or extending the

federal levee on the Elwha River’s east bank and the much shorter private levee on the west bank would

be required to provide existing levels of flood protection for area residents. In the vicinity of a proposed

southern extension of the levee, a new tribal fish hatchery could be built, and a sewage pumping station

for tribal and private residents could be installed.

Plant surveys in the immediate vicinity of the federal levee were conducted in the spring and summer of

2003 to determine the extent of impacts related to raising the levee. Adding material to the top of the

levee would also require material to be added to the sides to maintain a given slope. Riprap or other

strengthening material, and a buried toe along at least a 3,000-foot section of the levee, would be required

as well.

From north to south, the survey team made the following conclusions about the impact of these actions on

vegetation. Raising the northernmost part of the levee would likely result in negligible local impacts on

vegetation due to the removal of weedy herbaceous species to the east. Vegetation would recover quickly

after construction (three to five years), even without active revegetation programs. A small amount of old

field grassland could be lost due to raising and strengthening the levee. The levee would also likely be

extended northward to the beach berm to prevent river backflooding. Vegetation that would be removed

includes some dune species, such as wild rye, silver burweed, and beach pea. 

The eastern side of the middle section of the levee is vegetated with grass and herbaceous species. Raising

and widening the levee would result in the loss of all vegetation along the top and sides, and to some

extent those species in the immediate vicinity of the toe of the levee. Raising the levee would have

negligible adverse impacts on this continually maintained vegetation. Riparian forest trees in the

floodplain in the vicinity of the western toe of the levee in this section would be largely unaffected,

although some understory brush or trees might need to be removed to widen the levee base or to install

scour protection. A forested area along the western toe of the levee in the middle portion of this section

would be largely unaffected by the proposed action. A small amount of pastureland on the southern end of

this section would be buried.

Vegetation at the north end of the southern third of the levee consists primarily of various grasses and

weeds. The roadway on top of the levee and the eastern slope are mowed. Raising and widening the levee

in this location would have negligible impacts. The Halberg property lies in this area, the potential

location of the new tribal fish hatchery. Vegetation in the northern portion of the Halberg property is a

neglected pasture with grasses and weedy species, the same species as on the road. The pasture includes a

few orchard trees and small buildings. Construction impacts from the hatchery would be confined to a

small area where nonnative vegetation would be removed. Construction activities would increase the

prevalence of weedy species for a few years, but impacts to vegetation overall would be negligible to

minor. 

The Army Corps of Engineers constructed a gravel haul road that proceeds to the southeast; here

vegetation is less maintained and regrowth forest exists on both sides of the road. This part of the levee

road is approximately 1,800 feet long. Some less common plant species occur in the forested perimeter

east of the levee road, south and east of the Halberg property. This vegetation would be affected a minor

to moderate degree from extending the levee because it is relatively undisturbed. Widening would require

the removal of numerous trees. 

The levee would likely be extended south along a natural raised bench bordering an overflow channel of

the Elwha River. The habitat along this route (RM 2.2) and continuing all the way south to the City of

Port Angeles pipeline from the Ranney collector (RM 2.8) is a relatively undisturbed mixed conifer /
Impacts

150

hardwood forest. The habitat is extremely dense, with little open canopy, and in many areas ground cover

vegetation is limited to ferns and true mosses. Construction of a new portion of levee in this area would

result in moderate, permanent impacts on vegetation through the loss of trees and division of the forested

area. 

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe has decided to collect wastewater from homes in the Valley community

of the Lower Elwha Reservation and possibly the lower river area and pump it to the City of Port Angeles

for treatment. At this time, the pumping facility would likely be in the field east of Stratton Road, and

construction could have temporary, negligible impacts on grass or weedy vegetation at that site.

Trenching or excavation along the streets of the Valley community might result in the removal of some

weedy or herbaceous vegetation, with negligible to minor impacts. The pipeline from the pumping station

would be routed along the shoulder of Lower Elwha Road or the Milwaukee Railroad right-of-way. Both

are highly disturbed, and impacts to vegetation would be negligible. 

Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant. In order to assess vegetation impacts related to the treatment plant,

an approximately 5-acre area was surveyed in May and July 2003 by the Bureau of Reclamation. This area

is adjacent to the landfill and includes part of the landfill. It consists of bulldozed land, approximately 3

acres of regrowth mixed conifer / deciduous forest that is roughly 20–30 years old, and a small, wet

drainage on the south end of the site. As noted under the no-action alternative, the forest has been disturbed

by roads that crisscross the property. Because it is already disturbed and limited in size, the impact of

grading and removing forest and understory vegetation at this site would be minor, adverse, and permanent. 

Fish Restoration. Since the publication of the FEIS, the bull trout and Puget Sound chinook salmon have

been listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. As a result, additional mitigation

measures for the fish are now required, some of which could affect vegetation.

Chinook Salmon — The proposed aerial transport of adult fish to restore chinook salmon in the Elwha

River could require the use of a helicopter, and ground disturbance required for landing pad(s) and

possible access road(s) could adversely affect vegetation. Impacts are expected to be negligible to minor

and localized in scope. Site-specific surveys would be conducted for any species of concern.

Vegetation at Morse Creek, where chinook holding/rearing ponds would be developed for use during dam

removal, is upland mixed forest. Some small amounts of forest vegetation would either be removed or

inundated to create the holding ponds, with negligible to minor impacts.

Bull Trout — Measures included by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its “Biological Opinion” for

bull trout require the replacement or modification of Hot Springs Road culverts that limit or block access

to tributaries that could be used by trout (USFWS 2000). This action would likely involve ground

disturbance (grading/clearing/excavation). Depending on the method of construction and location of these

activities, the potential for adverse effects to vegetation would vary. Impacts are expected to be negligible

to minor and localized in scope. Site-specific surveys would be conducted for any species of concern. 

Revegetation. Studies since the publication of the FEIS show that the amount of material and effort

needed to revegetate areas currently inundated by the reservoirs might be much higher than previously

planned. For example, substantially more seeds and cuttings might be required, manual labor might be

inadequate, and animal grazing of planted material might be a larger problem than initially anticipated.

There would be a greater need for mechanized equipment and additional helicopters to collect cones and

seeds; to carry large woody debris, duff, or litter from borrow sites; to fertilize or apply soil amendments;

and to transport plants and/or crews. Increased use of mechanized equipment could require the

development of staging areas and access roads, which could involve clearing and/or grading. Helicopter
Vegetation: Impacts of the Proposed Action

151

use could require additional landing pad(s) in addition to those analyzed in the FEIS, involving additional

clearing and grading. Use of both types of equipment would result in ground disturbance, which has the

potential for adverse impacts of unknown magnitude. Impacts are expected to be negligible to minor and

site-specific in scope. Site-specific surveys would be conducted for any species of concern.

In addition, trees could be cut to obtain seeds or cones from certain species. Effects of this proposed action

would be negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts

Under this alternative restoring riparian, wetland, and upland communities after dam removal would

result in major, cumulative benefits for vegetative communities in the park. 

Conclusion

Floodproofing the existing DCWA well field could result in minor to moderate, long-term impacts to

riparian vegetation, while the use of the alternative well field site would have moderate, permanent

impacts to riparian vegetation; minor, permanent impacts to forested wetlands along an access road; and

minor impacts to floodplain wetlands. Any of the five pipeline alignments for the alternative well field

would have negligible to minor impacts on vegetation; this would also be true for an optional pipeline

connecting the DCWA customers to the municipal system. Connecting the Dry Creek Water Association

and the Elwha Heights subdivision could result in the loss or temporary sedimentation of six small

wetlands, with minor impacts. Offsite mitigation or rerouting could reduce these impacts to negligible. 

Loss of some riparian vegetation to remove the existing diversion and intake facility and to construct a

new upstream control weir would occur, but the loss would likely be minor and temporary. Loss through

inundation of riparian vegetation at the control weir could be compensated for by the recovery of riparian

vegetation downstream where the existing diversion would be removed, with negligible impacts. Localized minor to moderate impacts from removing several cedars and other trees to build a temporary

diversion channel to facilitate relocating the intake structure would also be possible. Two small, lower

quality wetlands would also be lost when the existing diversion facility was removed and the new fish

passage facility and control weir were built. Negligible to minor impacts to vegetation would result from

their destruction.

Loss of mixed forest and understory would result in minor to moderate impacts, permanent impacts at the

Elwha water treatment plant site, and temporary impacts at staging sites. Smaller wetlands on site might be

lost when drainage was altered; since these are man-made, the loss would be considered negligible. Two

larger wetlands could experience indirect, minor to moderate, temporary impacts during construction.

Impacts to vegetation from raising and widening the federal levee would generally be minor, as

vegetation is generally disturbed or artificially maintained, although at the southern end impacts to a

relatively undisturbed forest could be minor to moderate. Impacts to the forest east of the levee might be

negligible to minor. Impacts from constructing the tribal fish hatchery or wastewater pump station on the

Halberg property would be negligible to minor. Extending the levee south would result in moderate,

permanent impacts to vegetation through the loss of trees and the division of a relatively pristine forested

area.

Because the site the Port Angeles water treatment plant is already disturbed and limited in size, the impact

of grading and removing forest and understory vegetation would be minor, adverse, and permanent. 
Impacts

152

Negligible to minor impacts to vegetation from installing culverts for bull trout, for clearing helicopter

landing pads to outplant chinook, or to create chinook holding/rearing ponds (on Morse Creek) would occur.

Negligible to minor additional impacts beyond those in the FEIS could occur to vegetation from helicopter

landing pads and the use of heavy equipment (staging and access roads) associated with revegetating the

reservoirs. 

Any impacts to riparian, upland, or wetland vegetation related to the construction of these mitigation

facilities would be fully offset by the restoration of 5 linear miles of riverine habitat, including over 400

acres of floodplain riparian or wetland vegetation.

No impairment of park resources or values related to vegetation would occur.

Wildlife

Summary of Regulations and Policies

Relevant NPS Management Policies for biological resources, including wildlife, state that human impacts

to native animals, populations, communities, and ecosystems, and the processes that sustain them, are to

be minimized (NPS 2000, sec. 4.4.1). NPS managers are allowed to manage biological resources when

intervention is needed to protect other park resources (sec. 4.1) or to accommodate necessary

development in parks (sec. 4.4.2). Most of the development proposed in this SEIS is outside Olympic

National Park boundaries, and NPS policies would not necessarily apply. In addition, wildlife

management should minimize human impacts on natural wildlife population dynamics, while protecting

native wildlife populations against harvest, removal, destruction, harassment, or harm through human

action.

One of the purposes of the park, stated in a congressional report accompanying the park’s 1938 enabling

legislation, is to provide suitable winter range and permanent protection for herds of native Roosevelt elk

and other native wildlife species (NPS 1989). The park’s distinctive fauna has been identified as one of its

primary resources.

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

The presence of wildlife and wildlife habitat at specific sites affected by the proposed actions of the SEIS

was assessed through site visits conducted by agency contractors in February 2003 and by biologists from

the Bureau of Reclamation in May and July 2003. In this SEIS, representative species are referred to

specifically, and most other species are grouped according to broad classification categories. Wildlife

with special status conferred by the Endangered Species Act or other laws are analyzed under “Species of

Special Concern.” 

The following definitions of impact thresholds were applied:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection throughout the study area, or it

would be slight, but detectable, over a small and localized area.

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable, throughout the study area, or it would be

apparent over a small and localized area.
Wildlife: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

153

Moderate — The impact would be apparent throughout the study area, or it would be noticeable and

quite adverse or beneficial over a small and localized area.

Major — The impact would be severe or highly beneficial throughout the study area

Impacts of noise to wildlife species were found in the literature. In particular, impacts of aircraft and

helicopter overflights were examined, as these decibel levels are comparable to those associated with

construction equipment used at most of the sites described in this SEIS.

As previously discussed, an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it

would have a major adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

The primary impacts to wildlife have been the loss of habitat and anadromous fish populations that had

occupied the river year-round before the dams were built. The reservoirs directly affected more than 700

acres of habitat. The dams would continue to have major adverse impacts on park wildlife in the Elwha

River valley upstream of RM 4.9 by inundating habitat, blocking the passage of anadromous fish, and

effectively removing the calories and nutrients that they otherwise contribute to the ecosystem. The 5.3

miles of river lost through inundation was optimal habitat for raccoons, muskrats, river otters, beavers,

and mink.

Roosevelt elk, which require low-elevation, forested and riparian bottomlands for winter habitat and

grazing, have suffered adverse impacts from the inundation of habitat. Deer, mink, beavers, Douglas

squirrels, Cooper’s hawks, pileated woodpeckers, and yellow warblers (which are used as representative

species for the area) have been impacted by the loss of habitat.

In the upper and middle stretches of the Elwha, populations of fish-eating wildlife species may have

decreased when salmon and trout were blocked by dam construction. At least 22 wildlife species that use

salmon as food, including black bear, mink, mountain lion, bobcat, and river otter, could have been

adversely affected by the dams (Cederholm et al. 1989).

Some species benefited from the dams and reservoirs. The common goldeneye, bufflehead, and lesser

scaup are common winter residents on both reservoirs. Trumpeter swans also use Lake Aldwell as winter

habitat.

As noted in the “Affected Environment,” riparian vegetation lies along much of the area slated for water

and flood mitigation measures. This wildlife habitat has been somewhat degraded, disturbed, or changed

through development (such as the DCWA well field and the Elwha water treatment plant site) throughout

much of the stretch between RM 3.7 and RM 2.8. However, north of RM 2.8 and the industrial supply

channel and fish-rearing channel to about RM 2.3 and the Halberg property, the riparian forest is thick

and relatively undisturbed, providing habitat that is likely used by a variety of wildlife species. Mammals

that are likely to use this habitat include black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, weasels, bats, and mink.
Impacts

154

Pileated woodpeckers (see “Species of Special Concern” section), Wilson’s warblers, and more common

species such as American robins and song sparrows are also found in these types of forests and were

observed during surveys. Northern red-legged frogs or western toads may also inhabit riparian forests like

these.

Continuing north to the river mouth, property on the east side of the levee has been developed or

disturbed and does not generally provide more than minimal wildlife habitat. Notable wildlife species that

were found in this part of the study area include deer feeding at the Halberg property orchard, a nesting

red-tailed hawk, and a nest of California quail near the northern end of the levee. Some scattered wetlands

and side channels (RM 3.7–3.5) and around the Elwha water treatment plant site (RM 3.0–2.8) provide

habitat for fish, amphibians, and waterbirds, and the area at the far north end of the federal levee near the

river mouth is populated by shorebirds and gulls. An unusual black oystercatcher was observed during

one site visit near the northern end of the levee. In the side channel, river, and wetland habitat near the

Elwha water treatment plant site, several ducks and waterbird species were noted. The eastern split of the

river was particularly well used.

Surveys of upland habitat for roads, pipelines, and the Port Angeles water treatment plant site indicate

most of these sites are somewhat disturbed, although deer were observed adjacent to the site, and cedar

waxwings, yellow warblers, and more common species were found along some road alignments (The Rife

Road alignment into the Elwha water treatment plant site and the Kaycee Road alignment). Songbirds and

small mammals are the most numerous wildlife in the vicinity of the Morse Creek chinook pond

development.

As noted in the “Affected Environment,” trumpeter swans use the reservoirs and winter along the coast in

the project area. The population here is stable or increasing slightly.

Cumulative Effects

Various wildlife species in the vicinity of the southern park boundary are being increasingly adversely

affected by changes in land use related to human activities and development. This has the effect of

isolating populations and minimizing diversity. Recreational use both inside and outside the park along

the riparian corridor of the Elwha River also disturbs wildlife, sometimes to the point that individual

animals abandon the area.

Conclusion

The dams would continue to have major adverse impacts on park wildlife in the Elwha River valley

upstream of RM 4.9 by inundating habitat, blocking the passage of anadromous fish, and effectively

removing the calories and nutrients that they otherwise contribute to the ecosystem. Conditions along the

riverbank from RM 3.7 to about RM 2.8 are somewhat disturbed, and wildlife species have not been

observed in abundance except at some side channel and river locations (near the Elwha water treatment

plant site, for example). From RM 2.8 to the Halberg property, forest habitat is relatively intact, and

riparian forest species are likely. The river from the Halberg property north to the end of the levee is also

developed and disturbed, and few wildlife species have been observed, with shorebirds and gulls at the

ocean end of the levee. Upland habitat at the Port Angeles water treatment plant site and along most roads

and pipeline routes is also degraded. Habitat at the Morse Creek site is relatively undisturbed and

occupied by common bird and small mammal species. Major, adverse impacts on some wildlife species

upriver of the dams would continue with the dams in place, but because Elwha Valley wildlife are not
Wildlife: Impacts of the Proposed Action

155

specifically called out by the park’s implementing legislation or management plan, no impairment would

occur.

Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Analysis

Wildlife and wildlife habitat could be affected by mitigation actions as a result of ground disturbance

(trenching, clearing, grading, drilling) and filling activities, which would result in habitat loss and/or

noise disturbance. In addition, helicopter overflights could disturb or temporarily displace wildlife. As

noted in the “Noise” section, the kinds of equipment anticipated at some of the major construction sites

can emit 75–90 decibels (dBA), and average construction noise at 50 feet ranges from 80 to 85 dBA. At a

distance of 1,500 feet, this drops to 64 to 66 dBA. In the intervening area noise levels would range from

65 to 75 dBA, typical of a noisy street. Although some individual animals would habituate to

nonthreatening, continuous, or frequently occurring noise levels below a certain threshold (usually 70

dBA), some apparently do not (Bowles 1995). Reactions to noise or human disturbance include flight or

running, abandoning habitat or nesting sites, and avoiding feeding areas or stopping feeding. Running or

flying increases an animal’s metabolism twenty-fold over the resting rate (Mattfeld 1974). The loss of

nutrients or increased energy expenditure can ultimately mean that reproduction or migration, or even

survival, are compromised. If noise is very loud, animals can panic, and injury or separation between

parents and their young can occur. Birds flushing nests can leave eggs or young vulnerable to cold or

predation. Over 200 published and unpublished reports have identified direct, adverse reactions of

wildlife to noise, although very few have conducted long-term follow-up studies to determine indirect

effects (NPS 1994). 

Noise levels during the construction of the Elwha and Port Angeles water treatment plants would be

comparable to aircraft overflights for two years. Farther north, in what is the least disturbed and most

pristine riparian forest habitat in the study area, noise levels would diminish to levels typical of busy streets.

Panic and escape behavior is common at 80–85 dBA. Chronic noise at less intense levels, such as those that

would be experienced at 0.3–0.5 mile from the construction sites, can cause stress in some species, making

them more susceptible to disease (Gladwin et al. 1987), or in other species producing long-term deleterious

effects on metabolism and hormone balances (Stemp 1983). 

Helicopters have elicited a variety of responses in wildlife. At distances of 5,000 feet the heart rates of

bighorn sheep accelerated; when a helicopter was between 500 and 600 feet, sheep and caribou panicked

and ran (NPS 1994). Red-tailed hawks flushed their nests when a helicopter was 150 feet away, but

glaucous gulls disrupted nesting activities when helicopters were as far as 500 to 1,000 feet away. Nestlings

of one species (Lapland longspur) died when a helicopter approached within 50 feet (NPS 1994). In addition

to energy loss, reproductive effects, or loss of habitat, animals running from loud noise can experience

injury, or birds may accidentally break eggs or kick them or young from nests. These kinds of effects are

likely at major construction sites inhabited by wildlife. Panic and escape responses are less likely even 1,500

feet away, although continuous noise at 65 to 70 dBA may result in eventual abandonment of territory.

Site-specific effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are discussed below based on surveys conducted in

2003 (URS 2003b; BOR 2003a).

Dry Creek Water Association. Soil would need to be brought in to raise the present well field or the

alternative well field site above the 100-year flood level. This would be several feet in either case. The

alternative well field may not require raising if the buildings were located outside the 100-year flood area.

Noise associated with the construction of the alternative well field, roads, and pipelines or of a connection
Impacts

156

to the city’s water supply system would be loud for several months. As noted in the “Affected

Environment,” mammals in the vicinity include deer, elk, mink and several small mice, bats, and other

species. Continuous loud noise in the vicinity could cause the effects described above, ranging from

temporary disturbance for some species or individuals to permanent abandonment of a site by others. Bats

in particular could be disturbed by noise or vibrations if they roosted or nested nearby. Since appropriate

habitat is less common, impacts might be moderate. Other more mobile species would experience impacts

ranging from negligible to moderate. No major impacts would occur because they would remain localized

and would only affect individuals or small family groups. 

Habitat for birds in the vicinity includes grassy roadside strips, forests, and side channel wetland habitat

along the Elwha River and the Elwha River Road. Forest edges support several common songbird species,

and this habitat may support less common species such as ruffed or blue grouse, great horned owls,

western screech owls, band-tailed pigeons, and pileated and downy woodpeckers (however, none of these

species was observed during the surveys). Wetland species in filled gravel pits on the west bank by the

alternative well field site would likely include ducks, red-winged blackbirds, bald eagles, and other fisheating species, as well as northern red-legged frogs, roughskin newts, and other amphibians. The habitat

can support garter snakes and northern alligator lizards as well. Filling these pits to raise the level of the

well field would remove relatively uncommon habitat for wildlife; however, only the northernmost pond

is vegetated and complex enough to support wildlife. Impacts to wildlife would be minor to moderate and

permanent. Two small wetlands on the access road for the new DCWA well field (the same as the roads

described below for the surface water intake structure), as well as six small wetlands along the proposed

route to connect the Dry Creek Water Association and the Elwha Heights subdivision offer minimal

habitat for widlife. Only one of these, a small wetland in the clearcut field between the west end of

Walker Ranch Road and the Elwha Heights subdivision, is definitely believed able to support wildlife.

The loss of these wetlands, should it be required, would have negligible impacts on wildlife.

Construction noise would have immediate effects on birds and other wildlife at either well field location,

or along a pipeline route or road access alignment. The noise would last for several months and could

result in permanent relocation of some individual animals, a minor adverse effect. 

Diversion and Intake Facility and the Elwha Water Treatment Plant. Habitat and wildlife in the area

surrounding the existing diversion and intake structure and upstream 225 feet at the site of the new

control weir and intake structure would be similar to that at the DCWA existing and alternative well field

sites. Surveys in the spring and summer of 2003 and again in July of 2004 found this part of the riverbank

and downstream to the end of the WDFW rearing channel to be heavily used and largely devoid of

wildlife, although the 2004 survey did find some use of the scour pond and shoreline by a few birds,

including a great blue heron, mergansers, and dippers. As noted above, in the forests away from the

riverbank and in floodplain wetlands several bird and amphibian species or indicators of their presence

were found. The presence of mammals was inferred by tracks, scat, and other evidence, although no

individuals were observed during the surveys. 

Construction noise to replace the diversion and intake facility could be quite loud at this location, and

blasting noise would also be possible. Equipment would be required for in-water work, and as noted in

the “Vegetation” section, riparian vegetation would be trampled and temporarily destroyed. It is likely

that any mobile wildlife in the vicinity would abandon the area during construction. Wildlife as close as

1,500–2,000 feet could be temporarily affected, but would likely return to the area after construction

equipment left at night or on weekends. Because habitat in the immediate vicinity of construction sites is

already degraded, impacts would be minor to moderate. However, impacts would extend into the less

disturbed forest area adjacent to the construction site, with moderate, temporary impacts on wildlife in

this area. 
Wildlife: Impacts of the Proposed Action

157

As noted in the “Affected Environment,” songbirds, waterbirds, waterfowl, river otters, and beaver have

all been observed in the vicinity of the Elwha water treatment plant site. Signs of deer, elk, mammalian

predators, and small mammals have also been noted in the forest east and north of the industrial supply

channel. Amphibians, including western red-backed and northwestern salamanders, tailed frogs, and

northern red-legged frogs either occupy adjacent wetlands or are considered likely to inhabit them.

Several species of ducks, waterfowl, and a great blue heron were observed in the eastern split of the river

running directly west of the Elwha water treatment plant construction area. These animals and any others

in the immediate vicinity of the Elwha water treatment plant site would likely experience severe noise

impacts (80–85 dBA, with louder noise during some periods) and the overwhelming presence of humans

and equipment when construction began. Most or all mobile wildlife within a 1,500-foot or larger radius

would likely panic and flee. Truck traffic would be nearly continuous throughout the construction period.

Decibel levels would drop off with distance, but might still be loud enough (e.g., above 70 dBA) in the

neighboring forests to the east and north to cause avoidance or stress-related diseases and reduced

reproductive success in some species. Because impacts from construction would be temporary and would

not threaten the continued existence of any species, impacts to wildlife at the Elwha water treatment plant

site would be moderate and adverse.

To a lesser extent, any wildlife remaining in the four lower quality wetlands associated with the industrial

intake channel would also experience impacts as the site was modified, and it is possible that these manmade wetlands would be lost. The same is true for the additional several small lower quality wetlands in

the vicinity of the Elwha surface water intake or the existing access road to the current intake facility on

the west side of the river. Species occupying the larger, high-quality natural wetlands to the east of the

existing industrial channel would be adversely affected by construction noise as explained above, but they

could also experience increases in air emissions and turbidity resulting from construction activities. As

noted in the “Vegetation” section, a 200-foot buffer between any construction site and Class I wetlands is

normally required, although this is sometimes averaged to facilitate construction. Any increases in

turbidity or pollution in these wetlands would have an additional, negligible to moderate adverse impact

on wildlife. In the long term after construction of the Elwha water treatment plant was complete, it is

possible that the large wetlands east of the site would expand as drainage by the current channel would

stop. If so, habitat for wildlife might be slightly improved over current conditions. 

The Elwha water treatment plant would also have permanent or long-term impacts from the removal of

about 2 acres of forest habitat to build clarifiers and other plant elements. This habitat is relatively

common and not critical for any species; therefore, impacts would be minor, but permanent.

Subsequent to the implementation of the mitigation proposals, other closely related water supply / quality

actions could be taken at a later time. These include the possible construction of three additional clarifiers.

One of these clarifiers could be located at the treatment facility, but the site constraints mean that any

additional clarifiers would need to be located elsewhere. Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat of unknown

magnitude would be possible as a result.

Levees, Tribal Fish Hatchery, and Wastewater Treatment. Proposed mitigation actions in the

northernmost stretch of the Elwha River floodplain include raising or strengthening the federal levee on

the east bank and the private levee on the west bank (RM 0.1–1.6), extending the federal levee to the

north and south, expanding the existing tribal fish hatchery or building a new one, and building pumping

and pipeline facilities to transmit wastewater. As previously discussed, wildlife surveys were conducted

for this entire corridor, as well as along the connecting piece between the Halberg property (RM 2.0–2.3),

where the new tribal hatchery and wastewater pumping station could be built, and the northern edge of the

WDFW fish-rearing channel and the Elwha water treatment plant site (RM 2.8).
Impacts

158

The northern section of the levee would be raised and likely extended northward to provide current levels

of flood protection for residents on the northern end of the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation. Wildlife

observed in this vicinity included turkey vultures and crows, as well as several coastal species such as

gulls, cormorants, and a black oystercatcher. A brood of quail, which likely were nesting in riparian scrub

habitat west of the levee, was also observed. Audubon migratory bird surveys from 1994 through 2001

show a variety of raptors, freshwater birds (ducks, grebes, loons), and shorebirds (gulls, cormorants), as

well as smaller upland species that occupy habitat at the river mouth and along the shoreline. Because the

area is already disturbed, raising the levee would likely have only negligible impacts on wildlife.

Extending it northward could result in temporary, minor impacts during construction. The private levee

across the river could be extended and raised, or the levee could be removed and the homes raised instead.

Wildlife species were not surveyed in this area, but would likely consist of shorebirds and gulls.

Removing the private levee would benefit estuarine wildlife because of reconnecting ocean and river

water, which the levee now blocks. 

In the middle third of the levee, songbirds were noted, and ravens were scavenging on fish from recently

emptied tanks from the tribal hatchery. The presence of humans and daily activity at the hatchery appears

to keep wildlife away now; therefore, altering or raising the levee in this location would have only

negligible, temporary impacts. 

As noted above for the no-action alternative, several songbirds were observed on the south end of the

southern third of the levee near and on the Halberg property, as well as a red-tailed hawk (presumably

nesting) and a ruffed grouse. Evidence of deer browsing in the orchard was also noted. Building the tribal

fish hatchery or wastewater pumping station on this section of the property would result in the removal of

the orchard trees, which were used as food by the many birds seen during the survey and presumably

deer. The loss of this food resource would likely have no more than minor impacts to these species.

Raising the levee in this area would have negligible to minor impacts on these same species.

Habitat from the south end of the levee southward to the vicinity of the WDFW fish-rearing channel is

second- and third-growth forest and is much less disturbed than other areas. The habitat provided by this

riparian forest is likely used by many of the species identified above for the forest east of the Elwha water

treatment plant site, including deer, elk, cougar, mink, songbirds, grouse, and owls. Extending the levee

through this forest would likely have moderate, temporary effects on wildlife from construction noise and

the presence of humans. Minor, permanent effects from forest fragmentation in the levee footprint would

also occur, which could alter movements by some ground-dwelling species.

Constructing a centralized wastewater collection facility, distribution pipelines, and access/maintenance

roads could have additional minor impacts to wildlife, although the reservation is developed and human

activity is already present. Following construction, wildlife impacts would return to their current

conditions. 

Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant. As noted in the “Affected Environment,” songbird species were

observed in the area and a red-tailed hawk nest was located on the north edge of the Port Angeles water

treatment plant site near the forest edge. Indirect evidence of large mammals was not observed, but four

black-tailed deer were seen in the landfill area. Noise in the area is already high because of the adjacent

landfill, airport property, and housing, but the presence of trucks and grading at the site would likely

eliminate any wildlife during the construction period. Similar habitat is readily available elsewhere in the

immediate vicinity, and impacts from construction would be no more than minor because of this and the

already disturbed nature of the site. The proposed action would also result in minor adverse impacts on

wildlife due to permanent loss of the regrowth forest. 
Wildlife: Impacts of the Proposed Action

159

Fish Restoration. The proposed aerial transport of adult fish to restore chinook salmon in the Elwha

River could require the use of a helicopter, as well as landing pad(s) and possible access road(s). Wildlife

could be adversely affected through ground disturbance and noise. As noted above, helicopter noise can

be particularly frightening for wildlife and can cause various effects, from increased heart rate to nestling

mortality or injury. Because fish outplanting would occur in wilderness, the number of flights allowed

would be strictly regulated to minimize impacts to wildlife and to the wilderness experience of

recreationists. Because of these restrictions, impacts from helicopter noise above Glines Canyon Dam, if

outplanting was required, would be no more than moderate and temporary. Helicopter use in the vicinity

of the reservoirs following dam removal could also have moderate, adverse effects on wildlife, although

because the drained reservoirs would be large, unvegetated areas, wildlife would not be attracted to them

and so would experience less severe effects than from outplanting fish. 

The placement of culverts to provide clean water habitat for bull trout during dam removal would require

a few days of construction, with associated temporary, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on wildlife in

the vicinity. Efforts (electrofishing) to remove eastern brook trout from these tributaries prior to culvert

removal would be needed to prevent hybridization with bull trout. Electrofishing activities would involve

short-term, minor impacts from trampling of riparian vegetation.

Upland wildlife species in the vicinity of the proposed chinook holding/rearing ponds at Morse Creek

would be disturbed by construction for up to six weeks. During this period, heavy equipment would be

used to excavate the ponds and lay pipes. Wildlife could also be displaced by the occasional presence of

humans operating the ponds during and following dam removal. Impacts would likely be no more than

minor and temporary on wildlife in the vicinity.

Revegetation. Since the publication of the FEIS, studies show that the amount of material and effort

needed to revegetate areas currently inundated by the reservoirs might be much greater than previously

planned. For example, substantially more seeds and cuttings might be required, manual labor might be

inadequate, and animal grazing of planted material could be a larger problem than initially thought.

Mechanized equipment and additional helicopters might be needed to collect cones and seeds; to carry

large woody debris, duff, or litter from borrow sites; to fertilize or apply soil amendments; and to

transport plants and/or crews. Increased use of mechanized equipment could require staging areas and

access roads, which would require clearing and/or grading. Animal control would be necessary since large

herds of deer and other grazing animals would be attracted to the open area containing growing forbs and

grasses planted by park staff. Fencing or other animal control mechanisms that do not involve animal

destruction are preferred. Each of these activities would be temporary in nature, and as noted above, wildlife

would not initially be attracted to the reservoirs, so impacts would be minimal. However, as grasses and

forbs took root, the installation of fencing or other control measures might have a longer term, minor,

adverse effect.

Trumpeter Swans. As noted in previous sections of this SEIS, mitigation for lost trumpeter swan habitat

following dam removal and dewatering of the reservoirs had not yet been decided when the FEIS was

released. To date, the agencies have agreed that protecting swan habitat is the most complete and effective

means of mitigating impacts, and properties that support trumpeter swans during the winter are being

identified, and the possible purchase of conservation easements is being investigated to keep that habitat

from being used or developed in a way that would harm swans. 

Cumulative Impacts

Removing the dams and restoring wildlife habitat in the currently inundated portions of the river, as well

as returning anadromous fish to more than 70 miles of the mainstem of the Elwha River and its
Impacts

160

tributaries, would have major benefits for wildlife. Restoring riverbed gravels and sand, re-creating side

channel and wetland habitat, and restoring pre-dam conditions to the estuary and marine environment at

the river’s mouth would provide additional major benefits to wildlife analyzed in the FEIS. The

construction of mitigation facilities along the banks of the river could have a combined effect that would

be more severe than the minor to moderate effects at each location. Wildlife along the entire lower Elwha

river corridor (from RM 3.7 north to the mouth of the river) might experience up to two years of intensive

construction activities and noise. If individual animals were not directly affected by construction at a

particular site, they might nonetheless be adversely affected by noise up to 0.5 mile away. Cumulative

impacts to wildlife along this corridor could approach major in intensity for several months when all

construction was ongoing concurrently. 

Conclusion

Negligible to moderate temporary impacts from construction noise to mobile wildlife at either DCWA

well field site would occur; if bats abandoned roosting sites in the vicinity, the impact could be moderate

and adverse. The loss of off-channel, water-filled gravel pits as a result of filling at the DCWA site would

be a minor to moderate, adverse, permanent impact to wildlife. Construction noise would also disrupt and

displace wildlife in the vicinity of the existing and proposed diversion and intake facilities; trampling of

riparian vegetation would also occur. Because the riverbank has little wildlife, impacts here would be

minor, although impacts to wildlife in the surrounding vegetation from noise would be moderate and

temporary. The combined effect of constructing several mitigation facilities along the river could increase

these effects to major for several months.

Wildlife in the vicinity of the Elwha water treatment plant would experience localized impacts, and are

expected to panic, flee, and abandon the area within at least 1,500 feet of the site during construction, a

moderate, adverse impact. Wetland habitat would be lost, or indirectly affected by air emissions or

turbidity, a negligible to moderate, adverse impact. Minor impacts from the permanent loss of habitat

would also occur.

Modifying the federal levee would generally have negligible or minor impacts on wildlife from construction noise, but little wildlife habitat exists along this corridor. At the Halberg property, minor impacts

from building a tribal fish hatchery or wastewater pumping plant would be possible because wildlife use

this area more. Extending the levee southward and/or placing the wastewater pipeline in dense riparian

and upland mixed forest could have moderate temporary effects because of the relatively undisturbed

nature of the forest.

Minor temporary impacts to wildlife from construction noise and permanent impacts from the presence of

the Port Angeles water treatment plant facility would be likely. Additional minor impacts to upland

wildlife would occur as a result of installing culverts and building fish-holding/rearing ponds at Morse

Creek.

Helicopter noise to outplant fish above the Glines Canyon Dam could have localized, moderate adverse

impacts to wildlife. Additional minor to moderate impacts from the use of heavy equipment, helicopters,

and barriers such as fencing to revegetate the reservoir lands could occur.

No impairment of park wildlife would occur. 
Species of Special Concern: Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

161

Species of Special Concern

Summary of Laws, Regulations, and Policies

The national mandate of the Endangered Species Act states that fish, wildlife, and plant species are of

aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its people.

The act’s purpose is to conserve the ecosystems these species depend on and to generally increase

populations and secure sufficient habitat to recover species to viable levels.

The act requires the National Park Service to determine whether and the degree to which a proposed

action would affect federally listed threatened or endangered species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries is required if the action may affect such a species in order to ensure

that it would not jeopardize the species’ continued existence.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife also maintains lists of threatened, endangered, and

species of concern under the state’s administrative code (WAC 232-12-297). These include species on the

federal list, as well as species locally rare, unique, or in need of protection.

NPS Management Policies require the National Park Service to identify and promote the conservation of

all federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species within park boundaries (NPS 2000, sec.

4.11). The National Park Service would also control access to critical habitats and conduct management

programs that perpetuate the natural distribution and abundance of these species and the ecosystems on

which they depend. The policies further require consideration of all state and locally listed species in

planning activities. Management objectives specific to the park include the reestablishment of species that

have been eliminated as a result of human activities (NPS 1989).

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

The focus of the SEIS is mitigation measures that have either changed or require site-specific analysis. In

the case of fisheries, both the bull trout and Puget Sound chinook salmon are listed as threatened under

the federal Endangered Species Act, and the coho is a candidate for listing. The impacts of mitigation

facilities on each of these species is analyzed in this section. Additional information about chinook and

bull trout, as well as additional mitigation during dam removal and efforts to quickly restore each of these

species following dam removal, is now part of the plan and is analyzed in this SEIS. 

Documents relevant to species of special concern were reviewed for baseline information; biological and

life history requirements were completed, as well as numerous field surveys (see the “Affected

Environment” and sections on individual species below).

Impact analyses are based on a number of factors: the known or likely occurrence of a species or its

preferred habitat in the vicinity of the mitigation; direct physical loss of habitat or the effective loss of

habitat (through avoidance or abandonment) due to construction activity or noise; and the species’

sensitivity to human disturbance. The ability to predict impacts using these tools is limited to qualitative

assessments by team biologists.

Vegetation and wildlife at specific sites affected by the proposed actions of the SEIS were examined

through site visits in February, May, and July 2003. The sites were surveyed for the following plant

species of concern: tall bugbane, spreading miner’s lettuce, giant helleborine, false hedge-parsley,

Dortmann’s cardinalflower, pink sand-verbena, Cotton’s milkvetch, long-stalked Draba, western yellow

oxalis, looseflower bluegrass, royal Jacob’s-ladder, floating bur-reed, and featherleaf kittentails. Animal
Impacts

162

species that are of concern include the Pacific fisher, four species of bats, the bald eagle, the northern

spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, the harlequin duck, the northern goshawk, the pileated woodpecker,

two species of frogs, the western toad, and 10 species of anadromous fish.

The following thresholds were applied to assess impacts:

Negligible — Impacts might occur but would be localized and at the lower level of detection.

Minor — There would be slight but detectable localized impacts to habitat, or temporary impacts at

the lower level of detection to listed or monitored species. The impact would be comparable to

“affect, but not likely to adversely affect” under the Endangered Species Act.

Moderate — Noticeable, localized impacts to habitat might occur, but the impact to habitat over the

study area would be at the lower level of detection. Individuals of monitored or listed species

might experience slight but detectable temporary effects. The impact would be comparable to

“affect, but not likely to adversely affect” under the Endangered Species Act.

Major — Severe impacts to localized habitat might occur; the impact to habitat over the study area

would be readily apparent. Individuals of monitored or listed species might be directly and

noticeably adversely affected over the short term (comparable to an “adverse effect” under the

Endangered Species Act), or many individuals or populations could be benefited. 

A major adverse effect would result in formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for

any species listed as threatened or endangered. As previously discussed, an impact would be more likely

to constitute an impairment to the extent that it would have a major adverse effect on a resource or value

whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

For a species to be impaired, a critical habitat for a listed species would have to be adversely affected on a

large scale, or several individuals or a population of a listed species would experience very long-term or

permanent adverse effects. This would be comparable to a “jeopardy opinion” under the Endangered

Species Act.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

Mammals. Pacific Fisher — As noted in the “Affected Environment,” the Elwha River valley is

considered possible fisher habitat, especially large diameter trees or snags typical of late-successional

(mature or old-growth) mixed and coniferous forests. However, the last observation of a fisher in the

Elwha River drainage in the study area was in 1975. The dams have degraded fisher habitat by removing

salmonids as prey species and by inundating prime riparian habitat. It is considered highly unlikely that

any fishers remain in the forests in and around the areas proposed for construction of water and flood

mitigation facilities. The no-action alternative would likely continue current conditions, although

Olympic National Park is considering a program to increase fisher numbers.

Bats — Four bat species of concern are known to occupy forests typical of those in the study area. Each of

these four species (Townsend’s big-eared bat, Keen’s myotis, the long-eared myotis, and the long-legged
Species of Special Concern: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

163

myotis) occupy mid to late-seral forests. Townsend’s big-eared bats require caves or mine shafts for

hibernation and nursery colonies. Although habitat for these species appears to exist within the impact

area, no bats were found in wildlife surveys conducted in 2003. It is therefore presumed that they do not

exist directly at any of the construction sites, but would be likely to occupy less disturbed habitat within

the range of construction noise. The no-action alternative would result in no additional impacts to bats

over what they experience now from use of the area by recreationists and residents, or for existing water

supply facilities.

Birds. Bald Eagle — Both wintering and nesting eagles were affected by the loss of salmonids as prey.

On the middle and lower reaches of the river, the number of eagles feeding on spawning salmonids or

carcasses probably decreased during the nine months when carcasses had traditionally been available

(August through April). With fewer large riparian trees dying due to reduced river migration, the number

of snags that eagles could use as nesting, foraging, and roosting sites has decreased. As a result of the

dams and the loss of prey species upstream, bald eagles in the region tend to feed or nest along the coast.

A few have been observed along the lower river at other times (see FEIS), but density decreases going

upriver from the Elwha River delta, with very low numbers above the Glines Canyon Dam. No bald

eagles were observed during any of the wildlife surveys conducted in spring and summer of the locations

where mitigation facilities are proposed. The no-action alternative would likely continue current

conditions. Eagles would be rarely sighted along the Elwha River, but would frequent more productive

coastal waters in the area.

Northern Spotted Owl — A total of 514 potential acres of mature and old-growth forest habitat was

inundated by the reservoirs, eliminating potential nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for spotted owls

above Elwha Dam. As noted in the “Affected Environment,” this species requires unlogged old-growth

forests, which is unavailable in any of the project area. While nesting locations vary year to year, spotted

owls nonetheless have habitat requirements that are not true of any of the second-growth forest growing at

or near potential construction sites. Surveys conducted to determine impacts of dam removal (see FEIS)

found three active nests 1–2 miles from the dam sites. The no-action alternative would likely continue

conditions favoring a few owls in the vicinity.

Marbled Murrelet — A total of 438 potential acres of old-growth conifer and mixed forest habitat was

inundated by the reservoirs, eliminating potential nesting habitat for murrelets. As noted in the “Affected

Environment,” this species nests in old-growth or mature coastal forests. Although no evidence of nesting

in the vicinity of the dams or proposed mitigation facilities was found during surveys in 1995 and 1996,

the Elwha valley, including the study area, is used by murrelets as a flight corridor between the marine

environment and upper reaches of the valley, where several pairs continue to breed. 

Harlequin Duck — As noted in the “Affected Environment,” several wintering harlequin ducks were

found near the river mouth in surveys conducted in the mid 1990s. This species usually breeds in forests

adjacent to swift-moving streams, and the Elwha River drainage is considered prime nesting habitat. No

breeding or wintering harlequin ducks were found in any of the wildlife surveys conducted in 2003.

Northern Goshawk — This species breeds in the dense canopy of mature conifer or mixed conifer forests.

Grouse are an important prey item. Although no goshawks were observed during any of the wildlife

surveys conducted for this SEIS or the FEIS, habitat exists north of the WDFW fish-rearing channel and

south of the Halberg property.

Pileated Woodpecker — A single woodpecker was observed in the forest south of the Halberg property,

and there was evidence of another at the Elwha water treatment plant site. The pileated woodpecker
Impacts

164

requires individual large trees or snags for nesting and feeding. Under the no-action alternative these sites

would be left relatively undisturbed.

Amphibians. Northern Red-legged Frog — Northern red-legged frogs were observed in more intense

surveys at the larger wetland complex at the industrial intake channel and in side channel wetlands at the

alternative DCWA well field location. As noted in the “Affected Environment,” this species is widely

distributed along the Pacific coast, and it has no formal protected status, rather it is monitored by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service as a species of concern.

Tailed Frog — No tailed frogs were observed during any of the wildlife surveys. However, the cold,

clear, mountain streams this species prefers exist in the study area, and this species is likely to be present.

Like the red-legged frog, tailed frogs are widely distributed in the mountains of Pacific and western states.

It is a federal species of concern.

Western Toad — Western toads were observed in the forested portions of the site proposed for the Elwha

water treatment plant, and they are likely to occur more widely throughout the forests of the study area

because they do not depend as much on open water as do frogs. 

Fish. Chinook Salmon — Chinook salmon used to migrate as far as about RM 42, but migration has been

limited to the lower 4.9 miles of river below Elwha Dam since about 1910. Habitat below the dam is

degraded and does not provide the deep pools and the upper river areas needed for spring runs of Elwha

River chinook. Chinook primarily use the mainstem of this section of river rather than tributaries for

spawning. Because of elevated water temperatures and the resultant exacerbation of parasitic infestations

in some low water years, adult chinook are sometimes removed from the river by WDFW personnel and

held in the cooler, groundwater-fed, adult holding pond until artificially spawned. This means many of

those attempting to spawn in the lower 4.9 miles of river are removed by gaffing or netting for

propagation in the WDFW rearing channel. 

The Elwha chinook salmon stock has been artificially propagated in the watershed since the early 1930s

as a means to mitigate for the loss of juvenile and adult fish production resulting from dam construction.

The fish-rearing channel was constructed in 1974. The major stock used in the hatchery program has been

the Elwha River summer/fall chinook. NOAA Fisheries included the Elwha hatchery stock as part of the

ESA-listed threatened Puget Sound chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit in its 1999 listing

because it was considered essential for recovery of the unit. From 1988 through 1996 the average number

of chinook salmon juveniles released annually through the program was approximately 1.82 million

fingerlings and 528,000 yearlings. The current hatchery program produces only subyearling chinook

fingerlings, with an annual goal release number of 3.85 million fish. 

The total number of chinook returning to the river averaged about 2,000 adult fish between 1990 and

2002, ranging from a low of 1,150 to a high of 3,361 fish during this period. This is lower than the goal of

2,900 returning chinook. A substantial proportion of the total number of adult chinook returning to the

river die prior to spawning during years when river flows are low and water temperatures become high.

Pre-spawning mortality has ranged up to 68% of the population, due largely to parasitic infestations

described above. The average number of spawners over the last five years has been 2,079, which is

somewhat higher than the average of 1,611 for the preceding five years (1993–1997). From 1986 through

2002, the total number of adult chinook salmon surviving to spawn naturally in the Elwha River has

ranged from 163 fish (1994) to 5,228 fish (1988). During the same period, the number of adult fish

collected as volunteers to the hatchery or removed from natural spawning areas for use as hatchery

broodstock has ranged from 663 fish (1995) to 2,595 fish (1988).
Species of Special Concern: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

165

A large portion of the natural spawners is taken for hatchery brood stock, and many of the hatchery

returns stray and spawn in the river rather than the rearing channel (PNPTC et al. 1993). Because of this

crossover, the Elwha chinook run is managed as a single unit, i.e., returns to the hatchery and naturally

spawning fish are combined to represent the total chinook escapement. In years of high escapement,

limited spawning habitat creates crowded conditions for the spawning adults, with much higher density of

redds (spawning nests) per river mile than in other streams.

Under the no-action alternative natural chinook production would continue to decrease. Disease and

genetic problems related to hatchery dependence would contribute to the loss of the naturally spawning

stock. Fishing opportunities would likely become more restricted, potentially limiting all harvest of this

stock. Water temperatures would remain elevated, contributing to disease and a significant number of prespawning adult mortalities.

Native Char (Dolly Varden and Bull Trout) — The lower and upper Elwha River subpopulations of bull

trout represent 2 of the 34 subpopulations identified in the listing under the Endangered Species Act. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rates the lower Elwha River subpopulation as “depressed,” as noted in the

“Affected Environment,” based on extremely low numbers of char observed in recent years. The status of

the upper Elwha River subpopulation is unknown, although fish have been found in low numbers in Lake

Aldwell, in several tributaries in the middle reaches of the Elwha River between the dams, and in

relatively high numbers above Lake Mills.

The lower river subpopulation is thought to be anadromous. Few fish are observed in the river, and no

spawning population has been documented, although recent snorkel surveys identified three char fry in

2003, but only a handful of adults (10′′–24′′) since surveys began in 2000 (Pess, pers. comm. 2003). This

population has likely been negatively impacted by the loss of access to the upper river, by habitat

degradation (elevated water temperatures, lack of suitable spawning gravels), and potentially by harvest

activities in the lower river. However, some bull trout from the middle or upper Elwha River may survive

passage over the dams during periods of surface spill, thus contributing to the lower river population.

Since some recruitment from above the dams could continue with the dams in place, the lower river

subpopulation could possibly continue to persist in low numbers as a result of recruitment under the noaction alternative.

Construction of the dams isolated populations of bull trout in both the middle and upper Elwha River

stretches. The creation of Lakes Aldwell and Mills also modified habitat features, resulting in the

establishment of adfluvial populations (fish that live in lakes and migrate into streams to spawn) in these

reservoirs. Fluvial populations (fish that live, feed, and mature in the mainstem and migrate to tributaries

to spawn) are also present. It is believed that the upper river population, which appears to be in better

shape than the lower river population, would continue to live in the river and reservoirs without dam

removal.

A survey of one of the overflow channels at the industrial intake channel where the Elwha water

treatment plant would be constructed found one bull trout. 

Coho Salmon — Coho are limited to the lower 4.9 miles of the river. This habitat is degraded, with few

gravel bars, side channels, woody debris, or other habitat needed for successful rearing. As noted in the

“Affected Environment,” a portion of the Elwha River coho run is raised in the tribal hatchery. Poor

habitat conditions in the river would continue under the no-action alternative, and a viable population of

coho in the Elwha would rely on artificial hatchery production. Dependence on hatchery propagation

could degrade the quality of the stock because of increased potential for disease, inbreeding, and artificial
Impacts

166

selection pressures. Mechanical breakdowns and power outages at the hatchery facilities could further

hamper survival.

Pacific and Brook Lampreys — Although both of these species have been observed in the Elwha River or

its tributaries, their current status is unknown. None was found in any of the surveys conducted at the

mitigation facility sites.

Plant Species of Special Concern. Tall bugbane, spreading miner’s lettuce, giant helleborine, false

hedge-parsley, hedge-parsley, helleborine, and bugbane may have been impacted in the past by road

building and dam construction. Plant surveys in the project area were conducted in the spring of 2003,

and no individuals of any protected plant species were found.

Cumulative Impacts

Species of concern are those species whose habitat has been removed through development, logging, and

siltation; through deliberate filling, damming, or recreational use; or through other forces (such as

commercial fishing) that have caused populations to dwindle to dangerous levels. Each species has been

affected by some or many of these factors. Those species that are particularly sensitive to the presence of

humans, such as the Pacific fisher or goshawk, might be indirectly affected through noise or human

activity from more distant developments.

Harvests of the two salmon species of special concern, chinook and coho, can be intense. Coho are

heavily harvested in the marine environment and to some degree in the Elwha River by the Lower Elwha

Klallam Tribe and through sportfishing. Marine harvest rates of coho commonly exceed 65% of total

harvest (U.S. Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, and Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe

1994, p. 16). Reported in-river harvest of coho by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe from 1985 to 1994 has

been as high as 9,000 fish, but is usually in the range of 500–2,000 (Northwest Indian Fisheries

Commission [NWIFC] 1995). Annual sport harvest in the Elwha River has a daily limit of six fish per

person. In 1992, the most recent year for which data are available, the Elwha sport catch was 368 fish

(Zinicola 1994).

In recent years (1990–2000), an annual average of 47% (range 18% to 70%) of the sub-adult and adult

chinook salmon population originating from the Elwha River to spawn are estimated to have been

intercepted in ocean fisheries. Another substantial portion die in marine waters before returning to the

river because of predation or other natural causes. Fishing pressure has been decreased on Elwha River

chinook salmon in U.S.-managed marine and freshwater areas in response to the listing of the population

under the Endangered Species Act. Harvest protection measures implemented by the state and the tribes

are now designed to limit the proportion of the total Elwha River chinook return for a particular year to

less than 6% in southern U.S. fisheries.

Spotted owls and marbled murrelets have been impacted primarily through the logging of old-growth and

mature forest communities. The consequence of continued logging activity in their habitat is currently an

issue of local, regional, and national debate (USFS and BLM 1994). Bald eagle populations recovered

from their lowest levels in the 1970s and have been upgraded from endangered to threatened status.

Restoration of the salmonid fisheries in the Elwha River would support this trend.
Species of Special Concern: Impacts of the Proposed Action

167

Conclusion

Most species of special concern have been and would continue to be adversely affected by the presence of

the dams, either because habitat is inundated or occupied by the hydroelectric projects, or because salmon

prey species are no longer available. Although little known habitat for threatened mammals or birds exists

within the project area, some does occur for species that are of concern, with no formal listing. This

includes wetlands where red-legged frogs, tailed frogs, and western toads live; forests where pileated

woodpeckers were observed; and the river mouth where bald eagles and harlequin ducks feed. In addition,

the Elwha River corridor is a flight path for marbled murrelets. Forests adjacent to the development sites

may also be habitat for goshawks, bats, or plant species of concern. The river environment is home to the

threatened chinook salmon and bull trout, and the candidate coho salmon, and it may provide limited

habitat for the Pacific and brook lampreys. Under the no-action alternative the population of native (not

hatchery raised) chinook and the lower river subpopulation of bull trout would die off. This would be a

significant and adverse impact to fisheries in the Elwha River, but because these species and the Elwha

River are only part of an extensive series of watersheds in the park, there would be no impairment. 

Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Analysis

Mammals. Pacific Fisher — It is unlikely that the proposed mitigation facilities would have any impact

on the Pacific fisher, as no fishers have been observed in the area for nearly 30 years, and the species is

presumed to be extirpated in the lower Elwha River valley.

Bats — It is possible that noise or vibration from construction equipment or blasting could adversely

affect bats. Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to be very sensitive to human disturbance. A single

human entry into some colonies has caused the bats to abandon the roost. Noise and flashlights also

disturb this species, forcing them to abandon caves or move to areas with less than optimal habitat (NPS

2003). Vibrations from blasting can also have adverse effects on this species, particularly if it takes place

during the maternity cycle, when infant bats could fall to the floor of the cave and perish. Because

Townsend’s bats are a colonizing species, disturbance from noise, the presence of humans, or vibrations

can have a widespread, adverse effect. 

Townsend’s and the other three species of bats known to inhabit forests in the project area are active at

dawn or dusk and at night, so construction noise would not likely interfere with their ability to echolocate

and find food. However, daytime noise could be annoying enough that individuals of other species, or

colonies of Townsend’s big-eared bats, would seek alternative habitat. If so, the impact to these federal

species of concern would be moderate, adverse, and long term. 

Birds. Bald Eagle — The “Biological Opinion” prepared in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act for the FEIS determined that dam removal “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect”

the bald eagle (USFWS 1996). This decision is based on the lack of known nesting or wintering bald

eagles along the shores of the river itself. However, the “Biological Opinion” notes that any impacts to

eagles would be “disturbance related,” such as those from construction noise. Nesting bald eagles are

particularly sensitive to sound or disturbance by humans or human activity, such as from boats, cars, or

hikers. The early phases of reproduction, including egg laying, incubation, and the early nestling period,

are times when bald eagles are more likely to flush the nest when disturbed. Flushing can adversely affect

adult eagles through energy loss, but can also more severely affect eaglets or eggs (Anthony et al. 1995;

Grubb et al. 1992). If noise or activity is very frequent, some eagles may either abandon a nest or not

return to it the following year (Knight and Cole 1995). If no eagles nest within hearing range of the
Impacts

168

construction sites along the river, this is not an issue. However, any eagles nesting near the mouth could

by disturbed by construction to extend the federal levee northward, or the private levee on the western

bank of the river. If a bald eagle did nest here or along the lower Elwha River, moderate impacts could

result. If the eagle was simply wintering in this area, impacts from construction noise would be minor to

moderate and temporary. 

Northern Spotted Owl — The “Biological Opinion” issued for the FEIS indicated that the project “may

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” spotted owls (USFWS 1996). This is because surveys concluded that the closest of two known spotted owl territories was 0.9 mile from the dam site and 2,000 feet

at its closest point to the access road to that dam. Disturbance to that owl as a result of blasting and road

use would likely be minor because of the distance, topography, and temporary nature of the construction

project. Noise from construction of the mitigation facilities would not be as loud as from dam removal,

and it would take place for the most part in the disturbed mixed-conifer forest, where no spotted owl

territories are known to exist. Therefore, no impacts from construction activities are expected to the

northern spotted owl. 

Helicopter use to outplant fish above the Glines Canyon Dam could have temporary, moderate effects on

some individual spotted owls, but these would be very short term and only occasional. The “Biological

Opinion” requires flight paths no closer than 0.25 mile from suitable marbled murrelet habitat, a

minimum height of at least 100 feet, and a forward speed of at least 25 knots to prevent hovering. If these

same standards were applied voluntarily for spotted owls, impacts would be reduced.

Marbled Murrelet — The “Biological Opinion” for the FEIS determined that the dam removal would be

“likely to adversely affect” the marbled murrelet and imposed certain conditions and restrictions on the

project to help minimize any impacts from construction and operation of the proposed mitigation facilities

(USFWS 1996). In addition, the “Biological Opinion” indicates the USFWS guidelines for determining

the impact area for both spotted owls and marbled murrelets is no closer than 1 mile to blasting noise and

0.25 mile to noise above ambient levels. Given that no habitat for murrelets lies within these distances for

blasting or construction, impacts to nesting birds from noise are expected to be negligible or non-existent.

The “Biological Opinion” also indicates one form of impact to marbled murrelets expected from dam

removal is the disturbance of birds as they fly between the coast to feed and their upriver nesting sites

along the Elwha River. Demolition activities at the dam sites are expected to cause the birds to deviate

from their accustomed routes. Floodproofing either DCWA well field site, constructing the Elwha water

treatment plant, raising and extending the levees, replacing the diversion and intake structure, and

constructing a tribal hatchery and/or wastewater pumping station, as well as constructing Morse Creek

chinook holding ponds, would all occur within the river corridors used or suspected of being used by

murrelets. Impacts from these activities on murrelets traveling through this area could be minor or

collectively moderate for up to two years.

Harlequin Duck — Harlequins are highly sensitive to any kind of human disturbance and are unlikely to

re-nest if disturbed (Washington Department of Wildlife [WDW] 1991). Studies in North Cascades

National Park indicate that harlequins are even more disturbed by humans on foot than in rafts or kayaks

(NPS 1990). Much of the riverbank in the area where construction would take place is already well used

by recreationists, which may account for the lack of observations of harlequins during recent wildlife

surveys. However, as noted in the “Affected Environment,” several wintering harlequin ducks were

observed in an earlier survey on the coast near the river mouth. The only proposed mitigation activities

that might affect this species are likely to be raising, strengthening, and extending the federal levee

northward and raising the private levee. If construction took place in the winter, it is possible that

harlequin ducks would be disturbed enough to abandon the site for the season, a minor adverse impact.
Species of Special Concern: Impacts of the Proposed Action

169

Northern Goshawk — Only one pair of goshawks is known in the Elwha River valley corridor, and they

traditionally nest along the Whiskey Bend trail. The nest site, however, is approximately 3 miles up the

trail from the upstream end of Lake Mills, and no impacts are expected under the proposed action. It is

possible, but not likely, that a goshawk could inhabit forest to the north or east of the Elwha water

treatment plant site, but none was observed during surveys. Given the shy nature of this species and the

proximity of this forest to development and human activity, the chances of goshawks inhabiting forest in

the lower Elwha valley are considered remote.

Pileated Woodpecker — As noted above for the no-action alternative, two pileated woodpeckers were

noted in the spring 2003 surveys. One was in the forest south and east of where the levee road would

likely be raised, strengthened, and extended on the Halberg property. Tree removal would be required to

complete these flood mitigation activities, with a direct impact on this species. Signs of a second pileated

woodpecker were noted in the forest east of the Elwha water treatment plant site. Both these forests

consist of older second-growth trees. Construction noise is expected to be quite loud at this location for a

period of two years; the woodpecker is likely to abandon the site for at least this period of time. Other

pileated woodpeckers were not specifically observed during the surveys but are very likely to inhabit

similar conifer or mixed-conifer forests that are not subject to loud or annoying human activities.

Construction noise or the removal of trees to facilitate construction would have a moderate, adverse

impact on individuals in the study area.

Amphibians. Northern Red-legged Frog — As noted for the no-action alternative, red-legged frogs were

observed in open wetlands near the DCWA well field and the Elwha water treatment plant sites. They are

also likely in other emergent wetlands along the road to the DCWA well field or the road required to

access pipelines, and possibly in riparian habitat in spots along the entire affected section of the river

corridor from RM 3.7 to the mouth. Those frogs in the off-channel, water-filled gravel pits near the

DCWA alternative well field site would likely be adversely affected from the filling needed to raise the

well field, if this option was chosen. Frogs in smaller wetlands along the road could experience increases

in construction noise and turbidity, which may cause them to leave. They might also acclimate to the

noise and increased truck traffic. Impacts would be minor to moderate.

Tailed Frog — Tailed frogs were not observed during surveys, but may be present. This species is widely

distributed throughout a large range, but tailed frogs are sensitive to stream warming. Increases in water

temperatures of 4°C–8°C below the Elwha Dam may be enough to keep tailed frogs from occupying the

Elwha River. Construction would have an unknown, but likely no more than minor, adverse impact on

this species.

Western Toad — Western toads were observed in forested portions of the site east of the Elwha water

treatment plant site, and they are likely to occur in mixed riparian forest in spots throughout the project

area.. Construction would involve the use of heavy equipment, grading, tree removal, and vegetation

trampling. All of these activities could kill toads or remove their habitat. Impacts could range from minor

to moderate. 

Fish. Chinook Salmon — Chinook salmon would experience impacts from the same construction and inwater activities as described for other species under “Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries” (e.g.,

increased turbidity during construction, in-river work to replace the diversion and intake facility). To the

extent possible, construction would occur in the two dry seasons before dam removal began to avoid

impacts to fish. Best management practices would be applied during construction to minimize soil lost to

the river and increases in turbidity; however, turbidity would inevitably increase when the river refilled

during the fall and winter. If construction extended beyond the dry periods, turbidity, fuels, lubricants,

and chemicals could threaten water quality and chinook for short periods, such as during high storm
Impacts

170

events. Because turbidity would already be higher than normal during these events, loose soil or other

pollutants washed into the river or side channel might not be detectable. However, if there was an

accidental release, a pulse of increased turbidity would be noticeable. 

In addition to construction work on land near the river, some in-river work would be required to replace

the diversion and intake facility, to install or replace some flood control measures, and possibly to lay

pipelines. Sediment released as a result of these activities could be minimized during low-flow or dry

seasons, or by constructing a cofferdam or other barrier, but eventually a pulse of sediment would be

released downstream. Because river substrate below the dams is primarily embedded cobbles rather than

fines, sediment release would be less than in a similar undammed river. The rock diversion structure also

has accumulated gravels that would be released when the dam was removed. This would cause a loss of

spawning sized gravel from behind the dam, a minor, adverse, short-term impact to chinook using this

gravel for spawning. The gravels would be replaced following dam removal. 

It is unlikely that chinook would experience turbidities during construction of more than 1,000 mg/L. This

is a turbidity level already experienced during storm events in the Elwha River, with no known or

apparent increases in morbidity or mortality among chinook. If upstream sediment was added to the river

by a storm, turbidities could be higher in the vicinity of the mitigation facilities during construction, up to

a maximum of about 2,000 mg/L. These turbidity levels can affect fish feeding and behavior if they occur

over a longer period of time (more than six weeks). However, because they would not last more than a

few hours or days, impacts are expected to be only negligible to minor and confined to the lower 3.7

miles of the main river stem. These same types of construction-related impacts would be possible on

Morse Creek, where temporary chinook-rearing facilities are planned as a backup to production from the

Elwha River. 

The “Biological Assessment” for chinook, which will become the basis of a biological opinion by NOAA

Fisheries on how best to protect chinook during dam removal, also has added a proposal for monitoring

erosion and siltation and the success of any revegetation efforts along the river required as a result of

constructing mitigation facilities. If, during the period of monitoring (five years following construction

and revegetation), additional mitigation was needed to reduce impacts to chinook, these measures would

be implemented (NPS 2002). The “Biological Assessment” also proposes the use of best management

practices to minimize erosion, release of sediments, or the removal of trees, shrubs, and coarse or large

woody debris. Road widening would be kept to the minimum needed to provide access by heavy

equipment. Instead of further widening to maintain public access during the construction period, shuttle

service through the road closure zone would be provided.

In addition to increases in turbidity, construction could remove riparian vegetation or prey used by

chinook. In-stream work particularly would disrupt the riverbed and invertebrate prey. However, this

impact is expected to be of short duration as aquatic invertebrates rapidly recolonize relatively small,

depopulated areas (Somer and Hassler 1992). Overhanging vegetation would regrow following the

completion of construction for the most part, although permanent loss of streamside habitat is likely at the

diversion and intake site, as well as along the access road. Because the losses would be localized, they

would likely only have minor adverse effects on fish species.

As noted in the “Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries” impact section, extending the federal levee

or lengthening or building other flood control structures could remove riparian vegetation and related fish

habitat, including that used by chinook. It might also adversely affect woody debris recruitment and

sediment transport in the localized area. Collectively, these impacts would be negligible or minor for

chinook or other fish species. Placing large woody debris to act as cover and habitat in the vicinity of the

federal levee and other larger-scale flood control structures would mitigate these impacts. 
Species of Special Concern: Impacts of the Proposed Action

171

In addition to adverse effects of construction on chinook, this SEIS presents and analyzes the benefits of

several new mitigation measures aimed at protecting chinook during dam removal and increasing the

success and speed of restoration. Mitigation measures include additional clean water “windows” in the

dam removal process, keeping the state’s chinook-rearing channel in the Elwha open during dam removal,

using Morse Creek for additional production, outplanting following dam removal, and using monitoring

and best management practices to minimize the effects of flood control and water quality mitigation

measures on chinook (and all fisheries stocks). Each of these measures is described in more detail below.

The FEIS stated that dam removal activities resulting in sedimentation downstream would be stopped

during high spring runoff in April and May to help chinook (and steelhead) entering the river. The SEIS

proposes extending this stoppage to June 30 to allow fish releases from the rearing channel and tribal fish

hatchery to migrate out of the river. A second period of closure from August 1 to September 14 would be

added for summer/fall chinook to return to the river, and in particular to the WDFW fish-rearing channel. 

The FEIS proposed moving the WDFW rearing channel activities to the Solduc hatchery during dam

removal to protect the chinook stock. This would mean that the chinook reared during these three years

would return to the Solduc River and could mix with existing chinook stocks in that river. To keep the

Elwha stock pure, and to keep production of the Elwha chinook high, the fishery co-managers have

decided to keep the rearing channel in the Elwha open throughout dam removal. A clean water source (as

described above under “Surface Water”) would be required to keep the rearing channel open. To further

ensure the stock was protected, some hatchery production during dam removal might be shifted to Morse

Creek. Adults returning to Morse Creek would be captured and used to produce additional eggs and

young fish for the restoration process. 

In addition to outplanting eggs or subyearlings, adult fish could be transported by helicopter above Lake

Mills during dam removal to increase the restoration stock of chinook in the Elwha River. The number of

flights would be limited when spotted owls or marbled murrelets are nesting. This measure would be used

if the hatchery and Morse Creek were filled to capacity and additional chinook in the Elwha needed a

clean water environment.

Collectively, these measures would provide additional assurance against the loss of fish stock during dam

removal, increasing chances of successful chinook restoration in the Elwha River. These would be

potentially moderate to major beneficial impacts for chinook.

Coho Salmon — Like chinook, coho salmon would experience impacts from the same construction and

in-water activities as described for other species under “Native Anadromous and Resident Fisheries” (e.g.,

increased turbidity during construction, in-river work to replace the diversion and intake facility). To the

extent possible, construction would occur in the two dry seasons before dam removal began to avoid

impacts to fish. Best management practices would be applied during construction to minimize soil lost to

the river and increases in turbidity; however, turbidity would inevitably increase when the river refilled

during the fall and winter. If construction extended beyond the dry periods, turbidity, fuels, lubricants,

and chemicals could threaten water quality and chinook for short periods, such as during high storm

events. Because turbidity would already be higher than normal during these events, the washing into the

river or side channel of loose soil or other pollutants might not be a detectable change. However, if there

was an accidental release, a pulse of increased turbidity would be noticeable. Because coho inhabit the

lower Elwha River year round, they may be one of the species most sensitive to such an increase in

turbidity.

In addition to construction work on land near the river, some in-river work would be required to replace

the diversion and intake facility, to install or replace some flood control measures, and possibly to lay
Impacts

172

pipelines. Sediment release from these activities could be minimized during low-flow or dry seasons, or

by constructing a cofferdam or other barrier, but eventually a pulse of sediment would be released

downstream. Because river substrate below the dams is primarily embedded cobbles rather than fines,

sediment release would be less than in a similar undammed river. The rock diversion structure also has

accumulated gravels that would be released when the dam was removed. This would cause a loss of

spawning sized gravel from behind the dam, a minor, adverse, short-term impact to chinook using this

gravel for spawning. The gravels would be replaced following dam removal. 

It is unlikely that coho would experience turbidities during construction of more than 1,000 mg/L. This is

a turbidity level already experienced during storm events in the Elwha River, with no known or apparent

increases in morbidity or mortality among coho. If upstream sediment was added to the river by a storm,

turbidities could be higher in the vicinity of the mitigation facilities during construction, up to a maximum

of about 2,000 mg/L. These turbidity levels can affect fish feeding and behavior if they occur over a

longer period of time (more than six weeks). However, because they would not last more than a few hours

or days, impacts are expected to be only negligible to minor and confined to the lower 3.7 miles of the

main river stem. These same types of construction-related impacts to coho would be possible on Morse

Creek, where temporary chinook-rearing facilities are planned as a backup to production from the Elwha

River. 

Bull Trout — Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than other salmonids. In general, this

species needs cold water, complex cover, stable substrate with a low percentage of fine sediments, high

channel stability, and stream/population connectivity. As noted in the “Affected Environment,” the bull

trout population in the lower river is “depressed” and has experienced severe declines. Water temperature,

more than any other factor, is recognized by researchers as influencing bull trout distribution. An

unknown number of bull trout exist in the lower river subpopulation, but they are known to exist in low

numbers. Spawning has not been documented. Three groundwater-fed channels (side channel complexes

with low gradient and favorable temperature characteristics) in the Elwha River below the Elwha Dam

could be used by bull trout — Bosco, Boston, and Charley Creeks. 

Because bull trout are especially sensitive to water quality, they, more than other species, might

experience minor to moderate effects from increases in turbidity associated with the construction of

mitigation facilities, as described above for chinook. However, turbidity is expected to be gone from the

river within a few hours or days from the time it enters it (such as during a high storm event), so the

effects would be temporary.

As noted in the “Affected Environment” and elsewhere, bull trout have also been listed as a threatened

species since the FEIS was published. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has written a set of

terms and conditions that will function as additional means of protection for this species during dam

removal. These are presented and analyzed below. 

These measures fall into four categories: (1) preparing a rescue and removal plan for individual bull trout;

(2) providing a temporary holding area for rescued bull trout; (3) improving accessibility to Elwha River

tributaries during and following dam removal; and (4) monitoring effects of dam removal on bull trout

habitat from the mouth of the river to the upstream end of Lake Mills. 

Bull trout collected from the river between the Glines Canyon Dam and the Elwha Dam prior to dam

removal would be transported to the Elwha River above Lake Mills. Bull trout collected from the river

below the Elwha Dam would be genetically tested to determine their river of origin (i.e., the Elwha,

Dungeness, or other stream). Fish originating in the Elwha would be transported above Lake Mills, while

bull trout from other streams would be transported to either Dungeness Bay or Freshwater Bay. 
Species of Special Concern: Impacts of the Proposed Action

173

The “Biological Opinion” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires the National Park Service to

replace or modify Hot Springs Road culverts that limit or block access to tributaries (identified above)

that could be used by bull trout as a refuge during periods of high turbidity. Eastern brook trout would

need to be removed (through electrofishing) from these tributaries prior to culvert removal in order to

prevent hybridization with bull trout. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also required monitoring

sediment levels before dam removal, following dam removal for 10 years or until pre-dam levels of

sediment were restored, and periodic monitoring of suspended sediment and bedload levels after turbidity

stabilized. If turbidity had not stabilized after 10 years, then sediment stabilization techniques such as

replanting to reduce upstream erosion, must be implemented (USFWS 2000).

While the subpopulation above the Glines Canyon Dam would essentially be unaffected by dam removal,

the lower Elwha subpopulation would largely be lost without these mitigation measures. Implementing

mitigation measures would provide bull trout from the lower river with clean water refugia in tributaries

and above the dam, helping them survive the impacts of dam removal, a major benefit to this species.

Reconnecting the two subpopulations is one of the USFWS recovery goals for this species in the Elwha

basin; it would also provide nutrients in the form of salmon carcasses for bull trout upstream of the dams

and provide access to the marine environment. The Fish and Wildlife Service is hopeful that this open

access would restore anadromy to the Elwha bull trout population (USFWS 2000). 

Pacific and Brook Lampreys — In the Elwha River these species are thought to be at very low levels,

possibly critically depressed, given that the conditions required by them to flourish and spawn are similar

to salmonids. Impacts to individuals would be similar to those described above for chinook salmon, and

they would experience minor adverse effects from increases in turbidity. The turbidity would be

experienced as short-term pulses during major storm events. Dam removal and habitat restoration would

have potentially major beneficial impacts for these fish.

Cumulative Impacts

In addition to the cumulative impacts described for the no-action alternative, species of special concern

would also experience impacts related to dam removal. These are analyzed in the FEIS and include noise,

blasting, road traffic, air emissions, and the release of sediments from behind the dams. They would also

experience the major long-term benefits associated with restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem.

Conclusion

It is unlikely that proposed mitigation facilities would have any impact on the Pacific fisher, although

moderate impacts to bat colonies would be possible. Minor to moderate temporary impacts on bald eagles

wintering in the river construction area, or moderate impacts on nesting eagles at the river mouth from

levee construction could occur. Minor to moderate, temporary impacts from helicopter use might occur on

both northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets; additional minor to moderate impacts on murrelets

traveling along the river corridor between upriver nesting sites and the coast would be possible during

construction. Wintering harlequin ducks could experience minor effects from the construction of a levee

extension northward. Construction noise and tree removal might have a minor to moderate impact on

pileated woodpeckers. Impacts on small wetlands from filling, and indirect impacts on larger wetlands

from construction, could result in minor to moderate impacts on northern red-legged frogs and tailed

frogs. Grading or excavating could have minor to moderate impacts on western toads. Turbidity during

construction could result in minor impacts on chinook salmon and Pacific and brook lampreys; however,

turbidity could result in moderate temporary impacts for bull trout, as this species is more sensitive to

water quality. Coho salmon, because they inhabit the river year-round, might also experience minor to
Impacts

174

moderate impacts from increased turbidity associated with construction of mitigation facilities. The

extension of levees could have minor impacts on chinook, coho, or bull trout through the removal of

riparian vegetation and other habitat. Additional mitigation measures designed to protect chinook and bull

trout during dam removal, to prevent loss of the stock, and to increase the chance and pace of successful

restoration would potentially have major benefits for both species. No impairment to park resources or

values would occur.

Air Quality

Summary of Regulations and Policies

The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) enforces federal, state, and local air pollution

standards in Clallam County. Short-term construction activities are generally exempt from the agency’s

new source review permitting requirements (Regulation 1, Article 7 [d]). However, proposals are subject

to regulations applicable to all air pollution-causing activities for which precautions to prevent reasonable

fugitive dust and odors are required (Regulation 1 and WAC 173-400). Impacts to air quality are also

regulated under the Clallam County conditional use permit process. 

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

The air quality impact analysis is focused on dam rubble disposal activities and emissions from heavy

construction and hauling equipment. 

The follow assumptions about vehicle trips were made: 

• Between 30 and 50 heavy-duty diesel vehicles per day would be required for construction of the

Elwha water treatment plant. Trucks would enter and exit the site five days a week for 50 weeks

annually for a two-year period. Materials, including cement, would be available within a 10-mile

drive of the construction site.

• Between 3 and 10 heavy-duty diesel vehicles per day would be required for construction of the

Port Angeles water treatment plant. Other assumptions would be the same as above.

• Between two and four light-duty diesel trucks per day for six months would be needed to elevate

wellheads at the existing DCWA well field or to construct a new well field and pipelines. Soil to

elevate the site would be brought from borrow pits no farther than 25 miles away.

• Between 10 and 20 light-duty diesel trucks per day for six months would be needed to raise and

strengthen the federal and private levees. Soil would be brought from borrow pits no farther than

25 miles away.

Year 2000 emission information for vehicles is from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (National

Transportation Statistics, Table 4-38, 2000). 

Standard threshold definitions were applied:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection.

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable.

Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent.

Major — The impact would be severe.
Air Quality: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

175

As previously discussed, an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it

would be a major adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

Air quality is not affected by the dams, except indirectly as a result of providing 172 annual gigawatt

hours of clean power.

Presently, Clallam County and the project site meet standards for all criteria pollutants. Silvicultural

burns, pulp mill emissions, dust and other particulate matter generated from vehicles on unpaved roads,

vehicle exhaust, and smoke from campfires, slash burning, and occasional forest fires affect air quality in

the middle and lower Elwha valley areas and in Olympic National Park. The park is subject to episodes of

smoke and particulate matter pollution from slash burning on adjacent lands and occasional forest fires;

these short-term events affect visibility but have limited impact on other park resources. For those air

quality indicators measured inside the park, all emissions are well below national standards (see Table

18). 

Table 18. Air Quality Data and Standards for Olympic National Park (2002)

POLLUTANT AND AVERAGING TIME

PERIOD

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR

QUALITY STANDARDS HIGHEST MEASURED IN 2002

SO2

1-houra (parts per billion or ppb) -- 16

3-hour (ppb) 549 11

24-hour (ppb) 144 3.2

O3 (ozone) 

1-hour (ppb)

124 46

8-hour average exceedances (ppb) 84 none

Cumulative Impacts

As noted above, other sources of air emissions in the region include vehicles, smoke from wood stoves

and campfires, silvicultural burns, and pulp mill emissions. Despite these emissions, air quality is

considered high quality.

Conclusion

The hydroelectric projects do not adversely affect air quality, which is in attainment for all criteria

pollutants in Clallam County. No impairment of park air quality would occur under the no-action

alternative.
Impacts

176

Impacts of Proposed Action

Analysis

Dam Rubble Disposal. The FEIS described the disposal of dam rubble in terms of site reclamation. In

the previously proposed action approximately 210,000 cubic yards of concrete, rock, and earth fill

(including 20,000 cubic yards of concrete from the Elwha Dam site and 15,000 cubic yards of concrete

from the Glines Canyon Dam site) would have been trucked to one or more of several surface mines or

open pit sites. Since that analysis, concrete has become more valuable, making the option of crushing the

material for recycling a viable one. When compared to surface mine disposal, it is possible that removal

of dam rubble in the proposed manner could occur more quickly and would be considered

environmentally preferred. 

Under this proposal dam rubble would be trucked to one or more sites for crushing. Several facilities

permitted to conduct concrete crushing operations currently exist in both Clallam and Jefferson Counties.

One or more of these could be selected for crushing operations. With the amount of rubble involved,

crushing operations at this facility could be increased to accommodate the incoming materials, or the

concrete could be stockpiled on the facility site for later crushing operations. 

Issues related to air quality and the crushing of concrete are regulated under the air quality permit issued

by the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency to such facilities. In addition, air quality is reviewed and

regulated through the Clallam County conditional use permit process required for this action. Permit

issues would include, among other things, emissions, times of operations, lighting, and noise. 

While a facility has not yet been selected for concrete crushing, the contractor would ultimately be

responsible for compliance with all air quality permitting requirements. Only facilities currently permitted

to do such work would be asked to bid on the project. 

Construction at each mitigation site proposed in this SEIS and along dirt roads into the sites would also

result in dust and particulates. Best management practices would help minimize these effects, and impacts

would remain localized and therefore minor or moderate for short periods of time.

Vehicular Emissions. Heavy-duty trucks, including semi tractor-trailer combinations and concrete

delivery trucks, would be routinely used for the larger construction projects (e.g., the Elwha and Port

Angeles water treatment plants). It is estimated that construction of the Elwha water treatment plant

would require on the order of up to 50 trucks entering and leaving the site per day (URS 2003d). During

operation of the facility (e.g., during dam removal), two to four trucks per day would enter and leave the

site. Once the treatment plant was shut down for the most part, traffic would be similar to what it is now

— light-duty trucks and private vehicles, with occasional use by heavy delivery and maintenance

vehicles. No precise estimates of truck traffic at any other site have yet been made, although at least three

heavy-duty vehicles (10-yard dump trucks or flatbed trailers) per day would be required to complete

construction at the Port Angeles water treatment plant. Dump trucks to bring soil into the area would be

needed at the federal levee and at the DCWA well field to raise them for flood protection purposes. 

Assuming there would be between 30 and 50 trips per day at the Elwha water treatment plant, and that

trips would be no longer than 10 miles from the construction site to a concrete or materials supply facility,

total annual emissions are estimated to be between 0.25 and 0.5 ton of hydrocarbons, between 1.3 and 2.3

tons of carbon monoxide, and between 6 and 10 tons of nitrogen oxides. Emissions at the Port Angeles

water treatment plant would be substantially less, amounting to about one-tenth of those at the Elwha

water treatment plant. 
Air Quality: Impacts of Proposed Action

177

Assuming between two and four dump trucks delivering soil for about six months at the DCWA well field

location, total emissions from construction equipment are estimated at about 0.01–0.03 ton of hydrocarbons and about 0.02–0.05 ton of both carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. During the six-week

construction period to strengthen and extend the federal levee, about 0.06–0.09 ton of hydrocarbons, 0.3–

0.5 ton of carbon monoxide, and 1.2–2 tons of nitrogen oxides would be emitted (see Table 19). Major

stationary sources of emissions are considered to be 100 tons/year (FEIS), and mobile sources are

regulated by imposing standards on the emissions of each vehicle type. Compared to emissions from

stationary sources, or to emissions associated with dam removal, emissions from construction vehicles

would be negligible or minor. However, compared to existing air quality, impacts could be quite

noticeable in the vicinity of construction sites, resulting in a moderate impact on construction personnel,

staff at the rearing channel, or any residents in the vicinity. Currently, four residents live at RM 3.5 and

DCWA members reside near RM 3.6. 

Impacts from vehicles at the Port Angeles water treatment plant would be less intense than at the Elwha

water treatment plant, but they could be noticed by construction personnel and landfill operators. There

are no other neighboring landowners, so no additional impacts would be likely. Because landfill operators

are already subject to dust, vehicle emissions, and odors, additional emissions from construction

equipment might have only negligible effects.

As many as 10 trucks per day for up to six weeks could be involved in constructing the Morse Creek

chinook-rearing ponds. Following construction, several fish truck trips would be needed to transfer fish

into the ponds each year and to haul adult fish or gametes (eggs and milt) out.

Table 19. Total Approximate Air Emissions Related to Construction

of Mitigation Facilities

Hydrocarbons

(including PM10) Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides

Elwha Water Treatment Plant 0.2–0.4 ton 1.3–2.3 tons 6–10 tons

Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant 0.03–0.08 ton 0.14–0.45 ton 0.6–2 tons

DCWA Well Field 0.01–0.03 ton 0.02–0.05 ton 0.02–0.05 ton

Federal Levee Raising / Strengthening 0.06–0.09 ton 0.3–0.5 ton 1.2–2 tons

Morse Creek 0.001–0.0015 ton 0.04–0.05 ton 0.12–0.17 ton

Cumulative Impacts

In addition to the proposed mitigation facilities, dam removal would result in air quality impacts. These

would not be concurrent with the construction of mitigation facilities, but would follow immediately. To

summarize conclusions about air quality impacts in the FEIS, Elwha dam demolition would be estimated

to generate a total of 105.3 tons of PM10 during the two-year period. Most of these emissions (97.8 tons)

would be from the use of haul roads, although wind-blown dust from the drained reservoirs could have

moderate impacts on visibility as well. At 325 feet (100 meters) from the road where dust emissions

would be highest, concentrations would be less than the standard (150 μg/m3

) but could have short-term,

moderate impacts if unmitigated to residents living along a 0.5-mile unpaved section. Mitigation would

reduce the magnitude of these impacts to minor. PM10 emissions for the Glines Canyon Dam are estimated at 25.2 tons. Demolition would have no long-term impact on local or regional air quality.

The City of Port Angeles will be closing its existing landfill, which is adjacent to the proposed Port

Angeles water treatment plant. Soil from grading and excavating the plant site would be used to help

close the landfill, and large amounts of dust and vehicle emissions are possible temporarily. Dust control
Impacts

178

in the form of spraying water is likely to reduce impacts to short term and minor. Port Angeles plans to

construct a solid waste transfer station on property adjacent to the water treatment plan site as the first

step in closure of the landfill. This activity and construction of the water treatment plant would overlap,

and dust and emissions from heavy construction equipment might be moderate for short periods of time.

Dust from any continued operation of the landfill would also potentially have an additive effect.

Table 20. Annual Emissions of Particulate Matter Less than 10 Micrometers (PM10)

ACTIVITY ELWHA DAM PM10 EMISSIONS

(TONS)

GLINES CANYON DAM PM10 EMISSIONS

(TONS)

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 TOTAL YEAR 1 YEAR 2 TOTAL

Haul Roads 1.2 96.6 97.8 6.9 6.9 13.8

Loading 0.00037 0.03 0.03 0.0011 0.0011 0.0022

Dumping 0.00037 0.03 0.03 0.0011 0.0011 0.0022

Bulldozing - - 0.16 - - 0.0065

Wind Erosion - - 7.3 - - 11.4

Total 1.2 96.7 105.3 6.9 6.9 25.2

Conclusion

All concrete crushing activities would be performed in compliance with air quality permitting state and

county requirements. Temporary, negligible to minor impacts on air quality are expected as a result.

Vehicular emissions from the use of a variety of heavy construction equipment are expected to have a

negligible impact compared to stationary pollutant sources or to dam removal, but could have a minor or

even moderate effect to some nearby residents, staff at the rearing channel, or construction personnel.

Minor to moderate, short-term increases in particulates in the form of dust would occur during the construction of water supply and treatment facilities. Cumulative impacts from dust and vehicle emissions at

the Port Angeles water treatment plant site from closure of the landfill and construction of the adjacent

solid waste transfer facility would be likely. No impairment to park air quality would occur as a result of

the mitigation activities described under proposed action.

Noise

Summary of Regulations and Policies

Noise produced by construction activities would vary depending on the specific equipment. Construction

activities are excluded from Washington Department of Ecology noise ordinances (WAC 173-60-040).

Before issuing the required conditional use permit, Clallam County would review and, if necessary,

regulate a number of issues related to construction activities, including noise, lighting, and traffic.

Construction work and water treatment plant operations are required to be in compliance with OSHA

noise regulations and requirements for worker protection. However, nearby residents are not protected in

a similar manner.

Activities causing excessive or unnecessary unnatural sounds in and adjacent to parks would be

monitored in accordance with the NPS Management Policies 2001, which state that the Park Service will

strive to preserve the natural soundscapes of parks (NPS 2000). If necessary, actions will be taken to

minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect park resources or values or visitors’ enjoyment of them.
Noise: Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

179

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

Noise impacts affecting humans can range from temporary, mild annoyances for local residents to noiseinduced hearing loss resulting from a combination of high sound levels and an extended period of

exposure to sounds above 80 to 85 dBA. The impact analysis for the proposed mitigation projects

includes noise generated by construction equipment, as well as the long-term operation of the two water

treatment plants. Heavy trucks and equipment (concrete trucks, excavating/earthmoving equipment,

delivery trucks, utility trucks, etc.) would be used for many of the proposed projects throughout the twoyear construction period. 

Noise levels produced by construction equipment at a reference distance of 50 feet were obtained from

scientific literature. These levels are presented in Table 21 for equipment that might be used for

construction of water treatment plants or distribution pipelines, or road improvements.

Table 21. Construction Equipment Noise Levels (FEIS 1996)

EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL AT 50 FEET (dBA)

Track Hoe (back hoe) 80

Dozer (Cat D-8) 80

Crane (Manitowac 4100) 83

Air-Track (rock drill) 93

Hoe-Ram (large jack hammer attached to a backhoe or

similar equipment)

93

Front-end Loader 79

Heavy Truck 88

Air Compressor 81

Generator 78

Noise levels vary with distance from the source and with operation mode. For instance, at 10 feet away

grading equipment produces 94 dBA, while at 70 feet the level falls to 82 dBA. Terrain, ambient weather

conditions, and vegetation also influence noise levels at receptor sites.

Standard threshold definitions were applied:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection.

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable.

Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent.

Major — The impact would be severe.

As previously discussed, an impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it

would be a major adverse effect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of

the park;

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or

• identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning

documents.
Impacts

180

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

The power generation equipment at the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams is a minor source of noise;

turbine whine, high voltage electrical transmission line hum, and intermittent water crashing through the

spillways all contribute to unnatural sound levels. Noise levels are generally magnified on Lake Mills due

to the very steep canyon in which it is situated, although the nearest residents and known nests of species

of special concern (in this case, the northern spotted owl) are 1 mile away or farther, and so are unaffected

by these sources. Recreational users may experience some temporary and minor impacts from these

sources of noise if they are very close.

Cumulative Impacts

Noise in the project area is caused by vehicles traveling on Olympic Hot Springs and Whiskey Bend

Roads, heavy traffic on U.S. 101 (including logging trucks and other heavy duty vehicles), occasional

aircraft overflights, and motorboats on the lakes. None of these sources contributes more than minor

impacts to noise levels in the area.

Conclusion

Noise from the hydroelectric projects has negligible impacts on residents in the area now. No impairment

of the park natural soundscape would occur under the no-action alternative.

Impacts of the Proposed Action

Analysis

Construction Impacts. The noise impacts of dam removal are discussed in the FEIS. Noise impacts from

activities proposed in this SEIS include those from construction, helicopter use, concrete crushing, and

water treatment plant operations. Receptors include construction personnel, operations staff, residents,

and wildlife. Noise impacts on wildlife are discussed in the “Wildlife” and “Species of Special Concern”

sections.

As noted in other sections of this SEIS, construction sites occur along the east side of the Elwha River

from RM 3.5 to RM 2.8 (where the diversion and intake would be replaced, the Elwha water treatment

plant constructed, and the DCWA well field raised), from RM 1.5 to RM 0.1 (where the federal levee

would be extended, the tribal fish hatchery relocated, and a tribal wastewater system provided), near the

city’s landfill (Port Angeles water treatment plant) and at Morse Creek (chinook holding/rearing ponds).

Equipment use at each of these sites would expose workers to noise in the 80–85 dBA range for up to

several hours each day. For those workers in the vicinity of the loudest noise, restrictions on the time each

was able to operate equipment and hearing protection or another means of preventing hearing damage in

accordance with OSHA regulations would be required. 

In the vicinity of these construction areas are four residences near RM 3.5 and DCWA homeowners

slightly farther upstream, 15 tribal and private residences north of the north end of the federal levee, and

25 residents west of the private levee. 
Noise: Impacts of the Proposed Action

181

As noted in Table 23, construction noise drops off with distance. Staff operating the WDFW fish-rearing

facility in the immediate vicinity of construction at the Elwha water treatment plant site could experience

continuous noise levels higher than 64 dBA, but lower than 85 dBA. This is considered comparable to

auto traffic at 50 feet on a busy street, a moderate but highly localized impact to these staff. Since

construction of the Port Angeles water treatment plant would be farther away from where landfill

operators are currently working, and since the operators would be using heavy equipment and hearing

protection, noise impacts would be no more than minor.

Table 23. Estimated Decibels for Continuous Construction Noise at Reference Distances

under Best and Worst Atmospheric Conditions

SOUND LEVEL (dBA)

0.3 MILE 0.6 MILE 1.2 MILES 3 MILES 6 MILES

Under best conditions 64 54 40 8 0

Under worst conditions 66 58 49 31 10

Residents near RM 3.5 would be about 0.5 mile from the construction site for the Elwha water treatment

plant and would experience noise levels in the 55–60 dBA range during weekdays for two years. These

noise levels are considered the same as normal conversation or a typical office environment, with

negligible effects on the closest residents. Replacing the diversion and surface water intake facility (near

RM 3.5) would require the use of heavy equipment, and some blasting or other loud noises could occur,

with effects similar to distant or moderate thunder. As noted in the FEIS, short “thumps” of sound like

those from blasting are evaluated using flat-weighted sound pressure. Because the control weir and new

intake would be located in an area where at least one side is a sheer cliff, sound would be further

attenuated for residents. These blasts would occur only during the day and would have no more than

minor effects on residents.

Farther downstream, raising and extending the federal and private levees would involve the use of dump

trucks and other heavy equipment. As noted in the “Methodology” section, noise levels for this type of

equipment would range from 80 to 85 dBA at 50 feet. One resident lives within about 200 feet of the

northern extension of the levee and would experience noise on the order of 75–85 dBA during construction of this portion of the levee. As noted in Table 23, residents 0.3 mile from the construction site

would experience no more than 64–66 dBA and probably less, comparable to normal conversation or

Table 22. Typical Sound Levels (Continuous Noise)

SOUND LEVEL (dBA) LOCATION/SOURCE SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSION

100 Chain saw @ 3 ft. Very loud

90 Train @ 100 ft.

80 Truck traffic @ 50 ft. Moderately loud

70 Auto traffic @ 50 ft.

60 Normal conversation Typical

50 Typical office

40 Household at night Quiet

30 Soft whisper

20 Sound test booth Very quiet

10 Breathing

0 Threshold of hearing No sound
Impacts

182

living near a busy street. Impacts on residents at this distance would be minor; impacts on closer residents

would be moderate or even major for short periods of time. 

The chinook holding/rearing ponds would be constructed at RM 5.5 on Morse Creek. This area of the

watershed is mountainous and rural, and the primary land use is cattle grazing. Any construction in the

area would likely have only negligible to minor impacts, as residents would be 0.5 mile or farther away,

and noise would not be greater than that experienced during normal conversation. 

The location of the concrete crushing activities is not yet known; however, the facility would be permitted

for such activity by Clallam County, and the conditional use permit would include requirements to

mitigate noise, if necessary. It is likely that noise levels at the facility would not be greater than those

currently experienced; however, the noise levels might be more continuous if the facility was supplied for

two years with concrete blocks from the Glines Canyon Dam.

Transport Noise. Noise levels of trucks and equipment moving to and from construction sites would be

comparable to background conditions in urban or industrial areas, with only minor, short-term (two years)

impacts compared to existing noise levels. If travel through a residential area was required, trucks hauling

rubble would sound similar to logging trucks. 

Operations Impacts. Water treatment plant operators and staff would occasionally be subjected to noise

levels that could damage human hearing. Such operations are subject to OSHA worker protection regulations. The use of mixers, clarifier mechanisms, slurry pumps, effluent pumps, air compressors, and an

emergency generator at the water treatment plan was analyzed for potential noise impacts (URS 2003c). It

was concluded that the pumps, air compressor, and generator would likely be major noise sources. If

necessary, housing the pumps and the air compressor inside structures would help mitigate noise impacts.

As the emergency generator is not expected to be in frequent operation, its impact to noise levels is not

expected to be substantial (URS 2003c). As a result, noise impacts to operators of either the Elwha or the

Port Angeles water treatment plant are expected to be negligible to minor, site-specific, and long term. 

Helicopters would be used primarily to carry fish to clean-water locations above Glines Canyon Dam if

needed during dam removal and for three to five years afterwards, to restore fish when water quality was

stabilized, and possibly to help revegetate the reservoir areas. Up to 36 flights per year would be

permitted annually from March to July to transport fish upstream. Helicopters would fly above tree top at

a minimum height of 100 feet and forward speed of at least 25 knots. Helicopters would be equipped with

a fire bucket filled with water and fish attached to a 150-foot cable. Once the drop location was reached,

the pilot would place a fire bucket in the river water and release the fish by remotely opening the bottom

of the bucket. At 150 feet helicopter noise would range from 92 to 95 dBA (California Public Utilities

Commission 1999). No human receptors except for fisheries restoration or revegetation personnel would

normally be in the path of the helicopters or anywhere near landing areas. Staff would experience a brief

period of loud noise with negligible impacts to hearing. 

Cumulative Impacts

In addition to cumulative impacts identified above for the no-action alternative, cumulative impacts from

dam removal could occur from blasting, sawing, truck traffic, and other related activities. However, these

impacts would occur immediately follow the completion of mitigation measures. Because receptors of

dam removal impacts would be in a different location from those affected by the construction of

mitigation measures, and because receptors for dam removal would be far enough away that noise would

be negligible, no noticeable additive impacts from construction noise are likely.
Cultural Resources: Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

183

Conclusion

Noise from trucks and equipment associated with general construction activities would result in minor,

primarily site-specific impacts for a few residents. Residents in the vicinity of the northern end of the

federal levee could experience moderate or even major impacts for short periods of time from raising,

strengthening, and extending that levee northward. Impacts of concrete crushing would be within

permitted limits. Operation of the Elwha and Port Angeles water treatment plants could have short-term,

moderate to major impacts to staff, which would be mitigated to negligible or minor through the use of

required OSHA protection measures. No park soundscapes would be affected as a result of the proposed

action; therefore, no impairment would occur.

Cultural Resources

Summary of Laws, Regulations, and Policies

All federal actions affecting cultural resources are subject to the provisions of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, “Protection of

Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800), the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for

Archeology and Historic Preservation” (NPS 1983), and “Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section

110 of the National Historic Preservation Act” (53 FR 4727–46).

NPS Management Policies 2001 indicate that cultural resources are to be preserved and the appreciation

of the resources should be fostered through appropriate programs of research, treatment, protection, and

interpretation (NPS 2000). Other applicable legislation and regulations and specific management

procedures are detailed in “NPS-28: Cultural Resources Management Guideline” (NPS 1997).

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires a federal agency to take into account the

effects of its undertakings on properties included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of

Historic Places. This also applies to properties not formally determined eligible, but that meet eligibility

criteria. Section 110 of the act requires that federal agencies establish a program to identify, evaluate, and

nominate properties to the national register. It also requires agencies to act as necessary to minimize harm

to historic properties adversely affected by a federal proposal, and it gives the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation a chance to comment. In summary, the section 106 process requires the identification of resources that would be affected by a federal proposal, their evaluation under national register

criteria, an assessment of proposed impacts on those resources, and consideration of ways to avoid,

reduce, or mitigate adverse impacts.

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

Please refer to the FEIS and Schalk et al. (1996) for a comprehensive review of the cultural history of the

Elwha River valley and survey/testing results.

The process for the assessment of impacts to cultural resources is outlined in the revised regulations of the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: (1) identify the area of potential effect of the proposed action;

(2) compare that location with that of resources listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places; (3) identify the extent and type of impact of the proposed action on national register

properties; and (4) assess those effects according to procedures established in the regulations (36 CFR

800). An effect on a historic property occurs if an undertaking has the potential of changing in any way
Impacts

184

the characteristics that qualify that property for inclusion on the national register. If the proposed action

diminishes the integrity of such characteristics, it is considered to have an adverse effect. 

In addition, a 1995 “Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, Lower Elwha S’Klallam

Tribe, the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation Regarding Restoration of the Elwha River Ecosystem” further influences the assessment of

impacts of this proposal to these resources (see FEIS, Appendix 5). This programmatic agreement

establishes a process for the treatment of cultural resources within the project area. As stipulated in that

agreement, the study area is to be surveyed before any construction activities. Where possible, areas

where cultural resources eligible for the national register have been identified are to be avoided. Where

avoidance is not possible, the National Park Service will develop treatment and mitigation in consultation

with the tribe and the state historic preservation officer. 

While the completion of a surface reconnaissance for the study area is important for resource protection,

it is possible that buried cultural deposits will remain unidentified; these resources are also addressed in

the programmatic agreement. Prior to any construction, a monitoring and avoidance plan will be prepared

to address, among other things, when discoveries should stop construction, the required professional

qualifications of monitoring personnel, and actions to be taken when previously unidentified buried

cultural deposits are encountered. 

For this analysis, impacts are described in terms of type (beneficial or adverse) and intensity. Generalized

definitions related to intensity of impacts to historic properties are presented below. 

Negligible — The impact would be barely perceptible and not measurable; it would be confined to

small areas or a single contributing element of a larger national register district or archeological

site(s) with low data potential. 

Minor — The impact to the resource would be perceptible and measurable, but it would be localized

and confined to a single contributing element of a national register district or archeological site(s)

with low to moderate data potential. 

Moderate — The impact would be clearly detectable and sufficient to cause a change in characterdefining features of cultural resources that could have appreciable effects on the resource. 

Major — The impact would have a substantial, highly noticeable influence on the historic property’s

defining features. 

If it is determined there is potential for impacts to cultural resources listed on or eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places, the National Park Service will coordinate with the State Historic

Preservation Office to determine the level of effect to the property and any appropriate mitigation

measures that need to be taken. An official determination of effect will be issued by the state officer that

documents (1) the level of impact to the resource, including any potential for impairment to cultural

resources, and (2) the course of action that the National Park Service will be required to perform to

mitigate these effects.

In addition to analysis required in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, this SEIS

complies with requirements of section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires an

assessment of the effect of implementing an action on cultural resources based on the criteria of effect and

criteria of adverse effect found in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations (36 CFR

Part 800). In this SEIS a section 106 summary is included at the end of the discussion of cultural resource

impacts. In accordance with the advisory council’s regulations implementing section 106, impacts to

cultural resources are identified and evaluated by:
Cultural Resources: Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

185

(1) Determining the area of potential effect — The area of potential effect is defined as the area of

development proposed in this SEIS and includes facilities proposed along or near the Elwha

River, the Port Angeles water treatment plant, and all connecting pipelines and roads.

(2) Identifying cultural resources present in the area of potential effect — Resources are those that

are either listed on or eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

(3) Applying the criteria of adverse effect — Criteria apply to affected cultural resources that are

either listed on or eligible to be listed on the national register. 

(4) Considering ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. 

An adverse effect occurs when an impact alters any characteristic of a cultural resource that qualifies it for

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Adverse effects also include reasonably foreseeable

effects caused by the preferred alternative that would occur later in time, be farther removed in distance,

or be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5). A determination of no adverse effect means there is an effect, but the

effect would not diminish in any way the characteristics of the cultural resource that qualify it for

inclusion on the national register.

CEQ regulations and NPS Director’s Order #12 also call for a discussion of the appropriateness of

mitigation, as well as an analysis of how effective the mitigation would be in reducing the intensity of a

potential impact (reducing impacts from major to moderate). Any reduction in intensity of impact due to

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the effectiveness of mitigation under the National Environmental

Policy Act only and does not suggest that the level of effect under section 106 would be similarly

reduced. Cultural resources are non-renewable resources, and adverse effects generally consume, diminish, or destroy the original historic materials or form, resulting in a loss in the integrity of the resource

that can never be recovered. Therefore, while adverse effects under section 106 may be mitigated, the

effect to the resource remains adverse.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

Construction of the Glines Canyon and Elwha Dams in the early 20th century had major adverse

consequences on tribal cultural resources. The river provided not only the resources for sustenance and

lifeways of the Elwha Klallam, but was at the heart of their ceremonial, cultural, and spiritual existence.

Dam construction and the subsequent loss of the Elwha as a free-flowing river decimated fish runs critical

to the tribe’s livelihood and flooded villages, fish camps, homesteads, medicinal plant, food gathering and

preparation sites, and most likely burial sites. The harvestable shellfish have been altered by changing

marine substrate and reducing the size of the estuary at the river mouth. (See “Living Marine Resources”

and “Fluvial Processes and Sediment Transport” sections in the FEIS for more information.) 

Some of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s most spiritual sites were made inaccessible by the dams and/or

reservoirs. The Elwha Klallam believe that the Creator made their ancestors in the lower canyon of the

Elwha River. In the place where they were created, the Elwha Klallam went to receive spiritual guidance

and information about their future life. The creation site was made inaccessible by the Elwha Dam and

Lake Aldwell. It is unknown whether the fluctuating levels of the reservoirs have eroded archeological

sites in the area, but it is possible as the areas nearest the river were most likely to have been occupied.

The hydroelectric projects themselves are now considered historically important early examples of dams

and power plants and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Elwha Dam includes “a rare,

early example of the multiple-buttress type” structure and Glines Canyon Dam is significant because of
Impacts

186

“its association with the evolution of power plant design and contribution to the development of the

automation of hydroelectric installation.”

The dams blocked the natural downstream transport of sediment, resulting in a lowered riverbed and

lowered surface water elevation in some cases. This has reduced flooding in some spots and has stabilized

flow in the river channel (i.e., reduced the frequency and distance of the river’s meander). These

decreases in erosion and flooding may have secondarily protected structures or cultural sites, particularly

those built around 1910, when Elwha Dam construction began. These structures include the historic

Elwha Ranger Station complex, former homesteads, railroad remains, and many other known (and

unknown) archeological sites.

Cumulative Impacts

The no-action alternative would result in continuing and cumulative, major adverse impacts to cultural

and tribal resources, including decimated fish runs and altered shellfish harvest; the loss of a free-flowing

river important to tribal ceremonies, culture, and spirituality; flooded villages, camps, homesteads, plant

gathering/preparation sites, and possibly burial sites.

Conclusion

Under the no-action alternative fisheries, including shellfish, which the Lower Elwha Klallam depend on

for both cultural and sustenance reasons, would continue to decline as the result of impacts caused by the

dams. Sites important to the cultural and spiritual lives of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe would remain

inaccessible. The river would remain dammed and in an unnatural condition, a major, adverse, ongoing

impact on tribal culture. The hydroelectric projects would continue as historically important early

examples of dams and power plants. There would be no increased threat of the loss of structures,

buildings, or archeological sites in or near the floodplain from erosion action of the river meander or

flooding. Although the impacts to cultural resources from the dams have been severe, because the

resources are largely outside the park and are not specifically named in the Olympic National Park

enabling legislation or foundation documents, no impairment to park cultural values or resources would

occur.

Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Analysis

The proposed actions covered in this SEIS consist of new mitigation measures that have been developed

since the FEIS was finalized in 1996. The proposed actions that could impact cultural resources include

the following: 

• water quality / water supply mitigation for industrial customers and fisheries, the Port Angeles

municipal water supply, and the Dry Creek Water Association

• flood control measures

• Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe wastewater treatment 

• fish restoration, including the tribal hatchery

• revegetation 
Cultural Resources: Impacts of the Proposed Action

187

Impacts associated with the proposed actions include vegetation clearing, soil grading / leveling,

trenching, and possible filling, all of which could adversely impact cultural resources, primarily buried

archeological sites, through the loss of cultural context for artifacts, features, etc. These impacts could

occur at the actual construction site, as well as within staging and access areas where substantial ground

disturbance could occur. In addition, major construction projects (i.e., the water treatment plants, roads)

could adversely affect both visual and physical characteristics of cultural landscapes. With the implementation of the terms of the supplementary programmatic agreement, impacts would be mitigated and are

expected to be negligible to minor and site-specific to local in scope. Potential local impacts mentioned

here refer to the cultural landscape and would likely be short term. 

Potential effects to cultural resources are discussed below in general terms with the understanding that, in

accordance with the programmatic agreement, additional survey and impact assessments would take place

once specific details and locations of actions were finalized. All of this would occur before construction.

Cultural resources that are eligible for the national register will be managed according to the stipulations

of the 1995 programmatic agreement. Resources considered ineligible are not subject to further

management.

Water Quality / Water Supply. Two known historic resources exist in or near the Elwha water treatment

plant site. The remains of a historic residence and orchard exist between the WDFW fish-rearing channel

and the bank of the Elwha River. It is at least 200 feet from the proposed water treatment plant. The only

structural remains of the second site, the Milwaukee Railroad grade, are trestle pilings visible in the

current river channel. Monitoring of all drilling and trench excavation and the Elwha water treatment

plant site for subsurface tests found no cultural resources (URS 2004b). No known impacts to subsurface

resources would occur from constructing the water treatment plant; however, the provisions of the

programmatic agreement would guide the National Park Service in protecting any resources discovered

during construction. 

Geotechnical drilling activities were undertaken by contractors to the Bureau of Reclamation to aid in the

conceptual design of the proposed Elwha water treatment plant. Prior to drilling, a cultural resource

survey was conducted; no cultural resources were identified within the surveyed area (URS 2003b).

However, the area is within the territory of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, who lived in villages along

the river and nearby saltwater shoreline. 

Nine 6-inch diameter borings, ranging in depth from 30 to 60 feet were drilled within the study area. All

extracted materials were inspected for evidence of cultural resources, but none was identified. As a result

of the drilling findings, the fact that the area lies within a floodplain and is periodically flooded, and the

disturbed nature of the area due to past construction, it was concluded that there is a low probability of

encountering cultural resources as a result of the proposed actions (URS 2003b). Road corridors for

equipment access to the Elwha water treatment plant site have not yet been surveyed, but would either be

surveyed prior to construction, or construction would follow the conditions of a monitoring and avoidance

plan, as stipulated in the 1995 programmatic agreement.

Four geotechnical borings at the location of the proposed new intake facility were monitored for buried

cultural resources, and a visual survey of a 5-acre parcel of land including these facilities was completed.

Transects at 50- to 100-foot intervals were walked; visibility was excellent. The mid-channel island north

of the intake structure was also investigated by NPS personnel. The area is full of side channels and was

likely an active floodplain before the dams were built. It is also quite disturbed, with roads and evidence

of high visitor use. The island also appears to be frequently flooded. The amount of disturbance caused by

periodic flooding suggests that intact surface deposits are not likely, and no cultural resources were found. 
Impacts

188

Also, test pit trenches and the monitoring of geotechnical borings have found no evidence of archeological or other historic resources (URS 2004b) at the proposed Port Angeles water treatment plant site.

The site where the water treatment plant would be located is adjacent to the city’s landfill and is several

miles from the nearest stream or river. It has also been severely disturbed in many places, as the city has

used part of the site as a borrow pit to cover its landfill. Grading for the Actiflo filter building, clearwell

building, and recycle storage pond would be required. Sludge would be dried in beds that might cover

cultural resources. Although the likelihood of finding buried cultural resources is considered low at this

location, the provisions of the programmatic agreement would be followed. As noted above, this includes

preparation of a monitoring and avoidance plan, which would address, among other things, when

discoveries should stop construction, the required professional qualifications of monitoring personnel, and

actions to be taken when previously unidentified buried cultural deposits were encountered. The same

type of impact and mitigation measures for access roads or staging areas would also occur.

Dry Creek Water Association. Possible impacts related to the proposed drilling of new well facilities for

the Dry Creek Water Association include ground disturbance in the form of grading, clearing and filling

for drilling, access, and staging. In a recent feasibility study both the existing and alternative well field

locations were visited (URS 2002b). Cultural resource studies conducted at these sites, coupled with

review of Schalk et al. (1996), resulted in the determination that no evidence of archeological materials or

features was apparent at either site. 

Developing the DCWA alternative well field site or connecting to the city water system would require the

construction of a distribution pipeline. Associated impacts would include trenching, excavation, and

grading. Additional impacts to cultural resources from construction of staging areas and access/maintenance roads would vary depending on location and would likely include grading/clearing and possible

minor excavation and filling. Pipeline construction would vary in its potential to impact cultural resources, depending on the option. Alignments have not been investigated thoroughly, but given what is

known of the general area, it is believed there is a very low potential for the discovery of archeological

resources. Connecting the pipeline to the city’s water system would require a limited amount of new

pipeline within a developed area, where substantial grading and filling occurred previously. 

Impacts associated with pipeline construction could include the loss or disturbance of archeological or

ethnographic sites. In addition, road construction could adversely affect both the visual and physical

characteristics of the cultural landscape. As the potential for additional historic or prehistoric resources is

very low within the Elwha River floodplain study area, potential impacts to such resources are also

considered low (URS 2002b). However, it is recommended that additional archeological inventory take

place once the pipeline and road corridors are selected (URS 2002b). This suggestion is consistent with

the 1995 programmatic agreement and would provide important site-specific impact data. 

With the implementation of the terms of the programmatic agreement, the potential impacts to cultural

resources by proposed actions related to the Dry Creek Water Association are expected to be negligible to

minor and site-specific in scope. 

Elwha Heights Subdivision. A visual surface survey was conducted over the entire 6,000-foot-long

alignment of the proposed pipeline route connecting the Elwha Heights homeowners to the Dry Creek

Water Association, and two test pits were excavated. Ground surface visibility was fair; no cultural

resources were noted during the survey, and the probability of disturbing intact cultural deposits along the

existing alignment is considered low given previous disturbance by road construction and utility work.

The two test pits were dug in forested areas considered to have the highest likelihood of finding cultural

resources; however, none was found. 
Cultural Resources: Impacts of the Proposed Action

189

Lower Elwha Federal Flood Control Levee. Grading or excavating could potentially disturb and

uncover archeological resources in this area. Because the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe historically

occupied land along this stretch of river, the chances of finding buried resources may be higher. However,

the area to the west of the federal levee is also in a floodplain, and most buried resources could have been

scoured away during floods. 

Much of the flood mitigation work for the tribe would involve filling to raise, strengthen, or extend the

existing federal levee. In this case cultural resources would be buried under the fill rather than exposed

through grading. However, substantial excavation would be likely with the construction of a buried toe to

the river thalweg along the river side of the levee and the proposed extensions. To prevent impacts from

this excavation, an archeologist might have to be present during belowgrade excavation activities. In

addition, the provisions of the programmatic agreement, including preparing a monitoring and avoidance

plan prior to construction, would be followed. These measures would prevent impacts from becoming

more than negligible or minor.

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Wastewater Treatment. The major actions that could potentially

jeopardize cultural resources under this option are the construction of a centralized collection facility,

distribution pipelines, and associated access/maintenance roads. These actions would involve ground

disturbance (clearing/grading, excavation, trenching, and filling), which could adversely impact cultural

resources through the loss of cultural context of artifacts, features, etc. These effects would be possible at

the construction site and any areas used for staging and access. In addition, construction projects like roads

or pipelines could adversely affect both visual and physical characteristics of the cultural landscape.

Depending on the location of these facilities, adverse impacts to cultural resources could be negligible to

major in intensity. Cultural resource surveys would be necessary once specific details and locations of

actions proposed for this piece of the project were finalized. In addition, an archeologist might be needed

onsite during excavation in the Elwha valley if the risk of disturbing cultural resources was considered high.

Implementing the terms of the programmatic agreement would likely keep the effects to no more than minor

and site-specific and local in scope. 

Fish Restoration. Since the publication of the FEIS, the bull trout and Puget Sound chinook salmon have

been listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. As a result, additional mitigation

measures for the fish are now required, some of which could affect cultural resources. 

To ensure stock production of the chinook salmon, some hatchery operations could be shifted to Morse

Creek during dam removal. As noted in the “Affected Environment,” no archeological or historic sites

were found in a 1984 survey (Daugherty and Welch 1984), and the Washington State Historic

Preservation Office has indicated no adverse effects would occur from development of the site. Because

the exact extent and nature of the 1984 survey is not clear, all or parts of the proposed project location

might need to be re-surveyed once project boundaries are identified.

The proposed aerial transport of adult fish to increase the restoration of Elwha River chinook could

require the use of a helicopter. Landing pad(s) and possible access road(s) could adversely affect cultural

resources through ground disturbance. Implementation of the terms of the programmatic agreement would

likely mitigate these effects to negligible or minor and site-specific in scope. 

The measures that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included in its “Biological Opinion” relating to bull

trout require the replacement or modification of Hot Springs Road culverts that limit/block access to

tributaries that could be used by the fish (USFWS 2000). These actions would likely involve ground

disturbance (grading/clearing/excavation). Depending on the method of construction and location of these

activities, the potential for adverse effects to cultural resources would vary. Implementation of the terms of
Impacts

190

the programmatic agreement would likely mitigate these effects to negligible or minor and site-specific in

scope. 

Operations at the existing tribal fish hatchery would either be expanded to support the protection and

restoration of anadromous fish during and following dam removal, or they would be relocated to a new

facility on the Halberg property. Grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities could uncover

or disturb archeological resources. Given the location of this property near the existing reservation, it

might be more likely to yield Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal cultural artifacts than other construction sites.

Therefore, it is more likely that a cultural resource survey would be completed once project boundaries

are proposed, if these boundaries lie outside the area already surveyed. Additionally, depending on project

design, archeological monitoring might be necessary during construction as per the treatment and

monitoring plan and the programmatic agreement.

Revegetation. Since the publication of the FEIS, studies show that revegetation efforts could require

additional work (i.e., manual labor may be inadequate). The proposal for greater use of mechanized

equipment and additional helicopters could impact cultural resources because of additional ground disturbance. The use of heavy equipment and helicopters to apply soil amendments or to transport crews could

require staging areas and access roads, with clearing and/or grading, which could impact buried cultural

deposits. Implementing the terms of the programmatic agreement, including on-site monitoring of earthdisturbing activities where appropriate, would mitigate these effects to negligible or minor and site-specific

in scope. 

Cumulative Impacts

As documented in the FEIS, a number of cultural resources on the Olympic Peninsula have already been

lost to human development and natural processes (erosion, flooding, etc.). Additional cultural resources

are anticipated to be lost with the removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams (see FEIS), although

some resources would also be restored. Because of the widespread loss of cultural resources on the

Olympic Peninsula and the planned loss of historic properties such as the Glines Canyon and Elwha

Dams, reasonable efforts would be made to protect remaining cultural resources within the project area.

Depending on the extent and location of roads, pipelines, staging areas, and other facilities, there could be

cumulative, long-term impacts of unknown magnitude to the cultural landscape in the study area. For

instance, vegetation clearing or new structures could substantially alter views and the historic character of

an area. 

Conclusion

The implementation of the proposed mitigation actions could affect cultural resources within the study

area in a variety of ways. However, as described above, the 1995 programmatic agreement establishes a

process for their treatment, including surveys, identification, evaluation, and if necessary, protection.

Through the implementation of the programmatic agreement, major adverse impacts to cultural resources

would be avoided, and only minor adverse impacts at most are expected. No actions proposed would

result in impairment to cultural resources.

Section 106 Summary

This SEIS analyzes impacts to cultural resources of two alternatives (including the no-action alternative)

associated with the mitigation of downstream impacts from dam removal, as well as changes unrelated to
Socioeconomic Environment: Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

191

the project that have occurred since the 1996 FEIS was completed. Proposed mitigation actions include

design changes for the Elwha water treatment plant, construction of a new surface water diversion and

intake system, and installation of distribution facilities. All of these proposals involve ground-disturbing

activities (trenching, clearing, grading, filling) and the potential to affect cultural resources, particularly

those that are buried and, as yet, unidentified. 

The no-action alternative would result in continuing and cumulative, major, adverse impacts to cultural

and tribal resources, including decimated fish runs and altered shellfish harvest; the loss of a free-flowing

river important to tribal ceremonies, culture and spirituality; flooded villages, camps, homesteads, plant

gathering/preparation sites, and possibly burial sites. For purposes of section 106, this would result in an

adverse effect to the cultural resources within the study area. The hydroelectric projects would continue as

historically important early examples of dams and power plants (no adverse effect). 

Under the proposed action water quality mitigation actions would have the potential to affect cultural

resources (particularly archeological resources) within the study area in various ways, primarily by

ground-disturbing and filling activities. Implementation of the 1995 programmatic agreement will aid

significantly in avoiding major adverse impacts to cultural resources, with no greater than minor adverse

impacts expected. For the purposes of section 106, this would result in no adverse effect to the cultural

resources of the study area.. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5 concerning the criteria of effect and adverse effect, the National Park Service

finds that the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures as outlined under the 1995

programmatic agreement would not result in any new adverse effects (no adverse effect) to cultural

resources within the study area.

Socioeconomic Environment

Summary of Regulations and Policies

The National Environmental Policy Act requires an analysis of social and economic impacts resulting

from proposed major federal actions. In addition, Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires federal agencies

to assess the impact of actions on minority and low-income communities. Because costs of the mitigation

portion of the project have been updated for this SEIS, benefits were also updated. 

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

This supplemental analysis revises the economic findings of prior EIS documents regarding the Elwha

River restoration project. This analysis utilizes new information on economic variables, including the

price of fish in commercial fisheries, expenditures for sportfishing, and expenditures by recreational

visitors. All monetary figures have been updated for inflation by using the Consumer Price Index and are

expressed in 2001 dollars. The analysis derived the net present value of future benefits assuming a 3%

discount rate. The new information has been incorporated into the general framework and assumptions of

the economic analysis in the prior EIS documents and Meyer et al. (1995). 

Standard threshold definitions were applied:

Negligible — The impact would be at the lower levels of detection.

Minor — The impact would be slight, but detectable.
Impacts

192

Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent.

Major — The impact would be severe or highly beneficial.

Impairment does not apply to socioeconomic resources; therefore no analysis or finding is required.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Analysis

County Economic Base. Commercial and recreational fishing have traditionally been a cornerstone of

the Clallam County economy. Construction of Elwha Dam starting in 1910 resulted in an immediate and

significant decline in salmon and trout runs, and continued operation of the Elwha and Glines Canyon

Dams has resulted in lower income and higher unemployment in related employment sectors. Recently,

timber sector employment has also declined, exacerbating regional economic difficulties.

Infrastructure, Services, and Utilities. Repair and maintenance costs to keep Ediz Hook, a natural sand

barrier than protects the Port Angeles Harbor from eroding, are approximately $100,000 per year. Erosion

is exacerbated by the lack of sand and sediment supplied by the Elwha River, which would normally help

replenish Ediz Hook.

As of the February 2000 purchase of the dams and reservoirs by the federal government, local property

taxes to Clallam County ceased. This is a change from the no-action alternative described in the FEIS.

Under the no-action alternative, rapid demographic changes are not projected; however, the ongoing

transition from extraction and harvest to tourism and service-based industries would be gradual.

Fish and Fish Processing. An estimated $840,000 in business benefits were generated to all fishing

sectors in a recent average year.

Recreation and Tourism. Recreation and tourism play a major economic role for Clallam County and

the Elwha River drainage. In 1993 annual jobs and annual payroll in the travel and tourism sector

consisted of approximately 2,000 jobs that generated $21.3 million. Clallam County tax receipts from this

sector were estimated at $1.4 million in 1993. These figures are expected to increase slowly over the long

term. Travel and tourism expenditures in Clallam County in 1993 amounted to $116.9 million. Related

payroll income was $18.8 million (Runyon 1994).

Dam Repair. Continuing to operate the dams would require repair and maintenance, which would

amount to about $9 million.

Power Costs. The NPI mill pays an estimated $2.1 million per year for power from the dams on the

Elwha River. This would continue or increase slightly over time if the dams remained in place.

Cumulative Impacts

Clallam County is in transition. The county is primarily rural, and residents have traditionally depended

on the lumber and fishing industries. The county is now experiencing declines in its traditional resourcebased activities, particularly in the U.S. 101 corridor from Port Angeles to Forks. In addition, the county

is experiencing fairly rapid change due to increases in tourism, retirement settlement, and service-based

jobs, notably from its eastern boundary at Sequim westward to the City of Port Angeles. The decline of
Socioeconomic Environment: Impacts of the Proposed Action

193

the salmon fishery as a result of the Elwha River dams has added to the trend away from an economy

based on a sustainable harvest of natural resources.

Conclusion

There would be no additional costs or benefits over existing conditions, except for the $9.0 million in

required repair costs if the dams were not removed. The NPI mill would pay an estimated $2.1 million per

year for power from the hydroelectric projects. Business benefits from fisheries would continue at

$840,000 per year or could decline further. Recreation and tourism expenditures would increase slowly

from 1993 levels of $117 million. 

Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Analysis

County Economic Base. Elwha River restoration activities would specifically affect the economy of

Clallam County. Construction costs projected in 1996 and adjusted in real terms range from $127.7

million to $146.8 million. Over the 10-year construction period expenditures would generate between

$67.7 million and $73.4 million in business activity in Clallam County and an additional $36.1 million to

$38.4 million in personal income. An estimated 1,150–1,240 jobs total would also be generated during the

construction period. 

Infrastructure, Services, and Utilities. Removal of both dams would restore natural sediment processes

in the river and marine area. It would increase natural sediment available to Ediz Hook, reducing maintenance costs by an estimated $31,605 per year. Over the 100 years after both dams were removed, the

benefits of reduced maintenance costs for Ediz Hook would total $1.0 million in present value terms. 

Fisheries and Fish Processing. Removing both dams would restore fish stocks over the following 20 to

30 years. The economic benefit to the commercial fishery business sector over 100 years would amount to

$36.7 million expressed in present value terms. The corresponding economic benefit to the sportfishing

business would be $10.3 million. The combined total benefit to the commercial fishing and sportfishing

business equals $47 million over 100 years (discounted at 3%). 

Recreation and Tourism. With the Elwha River restored, an estimated increase of 507,084 annual visitor

trips are projected for Clallam County. The increased recreation and tourist activity would generate

additional business expenditures by $57.1 million per year in Clallam County, and business profits of

$11.4 million per year. Over the 100 years following dam removal, additional recreation and tourism

benefits (discounted at 3%) would total $317.6 million, expressed in present value terms. 

Present Value of Benefits from the Project. The present value of benefits from the project (the total

present value for a 100-year period) measures the net change of benefits associated with removal of both

dams compared to the no-action alternative, calculated over 100 years and discounted at 3%. Estimated

business benefits are summed and displayed on this basis as single present dollar totals in Table 24. For

the proposed action over the 100-year project life, benefits to commercial fisheries would amount to

$36.7 million, benefits to sportfishing businesses would equal $10.3 million, benefits of maintaining Ediz

Hook would be $1.0 million, and benefits of increased recreation and tourism would reach $317.6

million. The total benefits over the 100-year project life would be $355.3 million (excluding sportfishing

business net revenue to avoid double counting). These benefits would be readily noticeable to the local

economy, would be long term, and would be moderate to major in intensity.
Impacts

194

Table 24. Summary of the Net Present Value of Elwha River Restoration

Market Benefits over Project Life (3% Discount Rate)

Category

Market Benefits of Removing Both Dams 

(million $2001)

Commercial Fishing (tribal and non-tribal) 36.7

Sportfishing Business 10.3

Ediz Hook 1.0

Recreation / Tourism 317.6

Total 355.3*

* Excludes sportfishing business net revenue to avoid double counting. 

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. Because of the need to operate and maintain a community wastewater

treatment facility, residents of the Lower Elwha Reservation would be required to pay monthly wastewater bills. The average annual income in 60% of the homes on the reservation is less than $20,000 per

year, based on 2002 data from the Lower Elwha Housing Authority. The estimated $40 per month

wastewater bill would have a serious financial impact in many tribal homes.

As noted in other locations in this SEIS, one of the alternatives for extending the federal levee south

includes raising and lengthening the Corps of Engineers haul road through the Halberg property, which is

reservation land that the tribe purchased for future housing development. If this route was selected as a

preferred alternative for the southern extension, it could result in the loss of approximately 80 acres of

reservation land that was intended for low-income tribal housing.

Project Costs. The need to modify mitigation for water quality, water supply, and flooding has increased

the cost of dam removal and river restoration. The measures described in this SEIS would cost $69

million, whereas those in the FEIS were estimated at $27 million. Flood protection and cultural resource

mitigation have also increased from $4.2 million to $17 million. Other factors, such as increased

operation costs and inflation, have further added to the total cost, which now stands at an estimated

$182.5 million compared to the $113 million reported in the 1996 FEIS.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those described above for the no-action alternative.

Conclusion

Costs of the river restoration project have increased to $182.5 million, in large part because of additional

and more complex mitigation for water quality, water supply, and flooding. Total benefits of dam removal

over 100 years of project life, at 3% rate of discount, would total more than $355 million. This is a nearly

2:1 ratio of benefits to costs, and a moderate to major, long-term, beneficial impact for the local economy.

Public Health and Safety

While the 1996 FEIS document focused on earthquakes, dam failure, emergency notifications/alerts, and

emergency action plans, the proposed action addressed in this SEIS focuses on mitigation measures as a

result of dam removal. The no-action alternative discussed below reflects only those portions relevant to

the discussion of impacts for the proposed action. 
Public Health and Safety: Summary of Regulations and Policies

195

Summary of Regulations and Policies

Worker safety and hazardous materials are the focal point of the impact analysis in this SEIS, and the

regulations and policies that apply to public health and safety in this SEIS differ from those provided in

the 1996 FEIS. The topics of dam safety and earthquakes, which were discussed in the FEIS, are not

considered in this discussion. 

Worker Safety. Worker safety, including traffic safety, is primarily guided by regulations of the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Washington Department of Labor and Industries, the

U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Washington Department of Transportation. 

Hazardous Materials. NPS Management Policies state that “when lands are proposed for acquisition by

the NPS, the Service will take steps to avoid or minimize its liability for the contamination of NPS

property caused by other parties. The Service will include in the pre-acquisition environmental

assessment process the identification of recognizable environmental conditions, such as those associated

with prior or existing commercial facilities. . . . Any recognizable existing or potential environmental

contamination of lands proposed for inclusion in a park will be brought to the attention of the regional

director as soon as they are identified” (NPS 2001, sec 9.1.6.2). The same regulations presented in the

1996 FEIS for the handling of hazardous materials are provided in this SEIS, including:

• Executive Order 12088, “Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards” — requires

necessary actions to be taken for the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental

pollution.

• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 — authorizes federal regulation of generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of current and future hazardous and solid

wastes and underground storage tanks. 

• Washington Model Toxics Control Act (WAC Chapter 173-340) — Washington State’s toxic

waste regulatory program.

• Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1970 — requires safety measures for workers responsible

for the cleanup of hazardous wastes (requires a safety and health work plan, emergency response

program, record keeping, training, use of personal protective equipment, and medical

surveillance).

Numerous health and safety regulations deal specifically with the operation of water treatment plants

because the use and handling of hazardous materials at such facilities have the potential to impact

individual workers as well as the larger community. In 1992 OSHA published standards in the Federal

Register to require that hazardous chemicals be managed to ensure safe and healthful workplaces, which

is to be documented in a process safety management report (29 CFR 1910.119). While risk management

programs required under the Clean Air Act amendments reiterate many of the same requirements, the

focus is on potential incidents that can cause environmental and health hazards outside the facility (40

CFR 68). Emphasis is on the reduction of accidental release of hazardous substances, coordination with

and informing the local community regarding risks, emergency response planning, and risk management

planning. Regulatory audits are required. 

The Washington Department of Health has permitting authority over the operations of water treatment

plants. In addition, several other Washington State agencies (e.g., Ecology, Labor, and Industries) require

compliance with regulations specific to the handling and use of hazardous materials. A variety of federal,

state, and local regulations govern the transport of hazardous materials.
Impacts

196

Methodologies for Analyzing Impacts

The analysis of impacts to public health and safety are qualitative in nature. The intensity of potential

impacts is described in the following terms:

Negligible — The impact would be barely perceptible.

Minor — The impact would be slight but perceptible.

Moderate — The impact would be readily apparent.

Major — The impact would be severe.

Impacts of the No-Action Alternative 

Analysis

Worker Safety. No impacts to workers or risk to their safety would take place under the no-action

alternative.

Hazardous Materials. A team of hazardous material experts from the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a reconnaissance level pre-acquisition environmental containment

survey of both dams and accompanying facilities in February 1993. Since the dams were built in the early

1900s, the team particularly searched for asbestos and lead-based paint in the building materials and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the transformers, capacitors, and other electrical components. The survey

identified solid wastes at a quarry dump; household debris at private residences at the Elwha Resort;

underground storage tanks at the Elwha Resort; chemicals such as fuel, paints, lubricants, and pesticides

at various storage facilities and equipment repair areas at both dam sites; asbestos-covered wiring at both

dams; oil-stained ground from leaking transformers at Glines Canyon Dam; pole- and pad-mounted

transformers at both facilities; and banks of batteries at both powerhouses (USFWS 1993). Testing for

lead-based paints was not done; although given the age of the structures, they are likely to be present.

Since recognized environmental conditions were found during the level 1 survey, a more detailed, level 2

survey was conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995 (USFWS 1995b), and an even more

detailed level 2/3 pre-acquisition environmental assessment was conducted in 1999 by Ecology and

Environment, Inc. The 1999 survey provided information for the subsequent cleanup in 2001 and 2002 of

the former Elwha Resort’s asbestos-containing material and contaminated soil at both the resort and the

transmission line pole yard storage area. Also in 1999, 16 surface and 26 subsurface samples were

collected at the Glines Canyon switchyard. All of these samples, except the concrete samples, were tested

for organochlorine pesticides, total PCBs, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. Only total petroleum

hydrocarbons were found to be over the Washington State allowable limit of 200 ppm for cleanup. This

area is to be cleaned up by removing concrete, transformers, and soils down to the deepest detected

contamination, which in places are to bedrock, about 7 feet below ground level.

Capacitors and oil-filled electrical bushings have not been tested for the presence of PCBs. If testing

indicates their presence, the bushings would be disposed of as hazardous materials. Hazardous waste

disposal cost estimates for this project are based on the presumption that PCBs are present.

Inspection team members also found asbestos in the exterior siding of the Elwha Dam office, in the floor

tile, interior wall plaster, and electrical wiring insulation of the Glines Canyon Dam residence, and

electric cable insulation throughout both powerhouses during the level 2 survey (USFWS 1995b).
Public Health and Safety: Impacts of the Proposed Action

197

Since the FEIS was published, household debris, underground storage tanks, and contaminated soil under

the former gas pump island have been removed from the former Elwha Resort, as well as many of the old

residences. Contaminated soil at the former transmission line pole storage area at Elwha Dam has also

been removed.

Cumulative Impacts

The Elwha River corridor is relatively pristine, with very few sources of hazardous materials. Some cars

park near the river for recreational access to the shore, and small amounts of oil, grease, or other

petroleum products may wash into the river. This is also true of road use in the study area. 

Conclusion

Hazardous materials (asbestos, lead-based paints, and PCBs) found at the hydroelectric projects at both

dam sites would remain under the no-action alternative. The aging transformers are leaking; these and

other features would need to be maintained, replaced, or removed to prevent further contamination of the

dam sites. Total petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding the state allowable limit would also need to be

remediated. 

Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Analysis

Worker Safety. Proposed mitigation measures that could affect worker safety include 

• constructing two water treatment plants and distribution lines, new hatchery structures, wastewater facilities, roads, and culverts 

• removing and replacing existing diversion and surface water intake structures 

• developing a well field 

• conducting revegetation activities 

Worker safety issues include potential impacts related to actual construction, including the use and transport

of heavy equipment and materials. Catastrophic accidents as a result of worker inattentiveness or equipment

malfunctioning and resulting in serious injury or death are always possible at construction sites; these are

considered major impacts to public health and safety. However, careful adherence to standardized safety

procedures (e.g., OSHA and Washington Department of Labor and Industries regulations and procedures)

would make such catastrophic events unlikely. Such compliance would likely result in negligible to minor

impacts to public health and safety during the two-year construction period. 

Hazardous Materials. Proposed mitigation measures that influence public health and safety through the

presence of hazardous materials include the use and maintenance of heavy equipment in constructionrelated activities, as well as the transport, storage, and use of chemicals at the new Elwha and Port Angeles

water treatment plants. 

Heavy-duty trucks or other equipment at construction sites could leak oil or require refueling, possibly

resulting in minor spills of oil or diesel fuel, which could contaminate soil or water. Requiring the use of

biofluids in place of petroleum products could eliminate a major source of possible pollution to the

environment. In extreme cases, if all mitigation required by best management practices failed,

downstream wells could also be affected. The timely use of appropriate and standardized containment and
Impacts

198

cleanup procedures would result in no greater than minor, site-specific to localized impacts to public

health and safety. In addition, the operation of construction equipment would elevate workers’ and the

public’s exposure to increased air emissions. However, these emissions would not exceed standards set by

the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act and are believed to pose a negligible, short-term impact on

public health and safety.

The use and handling of potentially toxic materials during construction and operation of the water treatment plants, including alum, polymers, and chorine products, could adversely impact both worker and

public safety. Though unlikely, catastrophic accidents resulting in serious injury or death, or in significant

chemical releases to the environment as a result of inappropriate storage/handling of hazardous materials

are possible; this would result in a major, adverse impact to public health and safety. However, stringent

compliance with health and safety regulations and standardized safety procedures for the handling of

hazardous materials would likely result in negligible to minor impacts (refer to “Summary of Regulations

and Policies” above). 

Cumulative Impacts

In addition to cumulative effects identified under the no-action alternative, the proposed action would

include impacts resulting from dam removal. Demolition of the dams could entail the removal of

asbestos, wiring, or other potentially hazardous materials, but this deconstruction effort would not be

simultaneous with the construction of mitigation facilities. Worker safety could also be a cumulative

issue, as some of the crews completing mitigation facilities could work at the dam sites, with an increased

risk of accident simply related to the length of time they are involved in the project. Again, OSHA

regulations would keep workers from exposure to hazardous materials, noise, or other safety hazards to

the maximum extent possible, but accidents or spills could nonetheless take place at the dam sites.

Conclusions

Impacts to workers or the public from exposure to fuel or chemicals during construction would be

minimal; using best management practices would reduce the risk, resulting in a negligible to minor,

adverse impact. The use of hazardous chemicals during water treatment plant operation would be

monitored, and the use of standard containment and cleanup procedures would result in negligible to

minor impacts. Workers continuing to work on the project during dam removal could add risk of accident,

but OSHA regulations would minimize the risk. 
199

Consultation and Coordination

History of Public Involvement

The planning history for the restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem dates back to the late 1980s when

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission began writing an EIS to consider issuing licenses for the

Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams in August 1989; that document was distributed for public comment in

February 1991. Prior to its finalization, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries

Restoration Act in October 1992, which stayed the licensing process and directed the Department of the

Interior to study how the native anadromous fisheries and the ecosystem of the Elwha River could be

restored. Both the FEIS by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Elwha Report, prepared

by the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe,

were released to the public. An open house to discuss the Elwha Report was held in fall 1993, and the

report was finalized and submitted to Congress in June 1994.

In August 1994, a public notice indicating the National Park Service’s intent to prepare both a programmatic and implementation set of EISs was published in the Federal Register. The programmatic EIS

would examine how to fully restore the ecosystem, and whether dam removal was required; the

implementation EIS would examine the means to accomplish whichever alternative the programmatic EIS

found preferable. Public comments were collected during the 30-day period following this notice.

The Programmatic EIS was distributed for a 60-day public comment period in October 1994. Public

workshops to receive comments were held in Seattle and Port Angeles in November 1994. These

workshops were also used to obtain scoping comments on the range of alternatives and issues the

interagency team had decided were relevant to date for the Implementation EIS. Responses to comments

on the Programmatic EIS were addressed in the Programmatic FEIS, released in June 1995. The removal

of both dams was the selected alternative. 

The Implementation DEIS was released for public comment in April 1996. Comments were received for

60 days, and workshops were held in Seattle and Port Angeles. The Implementation EIS was finalized in

November 1996, and a “Record of Decision” was signed in December 1996. 

As noted in the “Purpose and Need” chapter, the Implementation FEIS included mitigation measures for a

variety of impacts that would result from dam removal. Since the release of the FEIS in 1996, new

information has been developed, and environmental conditions have changed. To address changes in

mitigation measures and the impacts of the measures themselves, this supplement to the FEIS (referred to

as the SEIS) has been prepared. The draft SEIS will be available for a 60-day public review. 

Public Scoping for this SEIS

Public scoping for the SEIS took place in September and October 2002, and nine comment letters were

received. All scoping comments considered relevant to the analysis of the mitigation facilities are

addressed in the “Purpose and Need” chapter of this SEIS. Below is a summary of comments and the

agencies’ response to them.
Consultation and Coordination

200

Comment Response

In the NPS press release, it noted that sources of groundwater not hydraulically connected to the river were

investigated as sources of supply during and following

dam removal, but they do not exist in the quantities

needed. This statement raises a question about the quantity

of Elwha’s water contemplated for future withdrawal, and

the potential for affecting in-stream flows needed for fish

habitat and migration in the Elwha River. Please address

this in the SEIS.

Although this is outside the scope of what is being

examined in this SEIS, the brief response to this

comment is that the water use of the Elwha River

before and after dam removal will remain the same;

e.g. there is no additional impact to the quantity of

water used from dam removal or restoration

activities.

Address requirements to provide sufficient sediment

transport to revive sediment deposits along the shore and

banks of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and for Ediz Hook.

Again, this SEIS is prepared to address mitigation

measures. Some information about the effect of

dams blocking sediment and resulting impacts to

Ediz Hook is available in the FEIS.

Include an assessment of the estuarine and nearshore water

quality in the vicinity of the river mouth. What is the effect

of dam removal on that environment? Wouldn’t resources

be adversely affected by sediment scouring, swift water

currents, changes in salinity, and poor water quality at the

time of dam removal?

The purpose of this SEIS is to address the impacts of

mitigation measures for water quality and flooding

impacts. Some information about the effects of dam

removal on the nearshore environment is available in

the FEIS (see “Living Marine Resources” sections).

I am in favor of a new diversion facility that will pass fish

and sediment, but believe the SEIS should evaluate options

for diverting surface water that do not entail construction

of a structure spanning the entire floodplain. The design

should not eliminate side channels and must pass all

migrating smolts, including pink salmon, and old-growth

size debris.

The weir and intake were designed to pass all

migrating smolts, including pink salmon, as well as

sediment, bedload, and large debris. However, the

design team believed that the preferred option to

obtain enough water was an intake that spanned the

channel. 

Consider a broad variety of restoration alternatives for

chinook salmon, including captive brood. Risk of loss of

this population must be avoided.

Rather than captive brood, the agencies believe

rearing ponds on Morse Creek are the best protection

against loss of the population.

Changes in fisheries management policy since the FEIS

mean harvest of Elwha River salmon will be reduced and

the rate of recovery increased.

This is addressed in cumulative impacts to fish in

this SEIS to some degree. We agree that the rate of

recovery may be slightly improved.

It may be unnecessary to alter the restoration plan for bull

trout, even though bull trout have been listed as threatened.

The recovery plan for bull trout is explained in

appendix B, the biological opinion from the

USFWS.

Make sure the Port Angeles water treatment plant is

compatible with FAA regulations, and does not include

open air ponds that may attract birds.

The engineers designing the facility are aware of

FAA regulations and will comply with them.

Carefully consider onsite recycling of cement as an

alternative to upland disposal.

Crushing concrete at a privately owned offsite

facility is the preferred method at this time. Upland

disposal as analyzed in the FEIS remains an option,

but is not preferred.

The current water system penalizes residents for maintaining a decent yard during dry conditions and is

determined by the co-amount of sewage. The

establishment of a system as you are contemplating will

only further degrade this service by placing increased

financial burden on local citizens. 

Removing the dams will have no financial effect on

the cost of water for residents.
List of Preparers and Contributors

201

Comment Response

To continue utilizing undetermined methods for the

physical aspect of dam removal, such as methods of

disposing of debris, will surely create parallel dilemmas

such as the water system problem (identified above).

Disposal of debris, whether in open pit mines

(upland disposal) or by the recycling of crushed

concrete, are well-founded, standard practices rather

than “undetermined methods.”

What are the impacts to macroalgal and eelgrass beds in

the vicinity of the Elwha River delta due to the release of a

large volume of accumulated sediments?

The FEIS addressed these impacts in the section

“Living Marine Resources.” Suspended solids are

expected to have an adverse effect on macroalgae,

which would subsequently affect fish, shellfish,

crustaceans, and other marine animals it supports.

These impacts would be lessened by periods of river

clearing and by shifting of tidal currents, but shortterm, major impacts and long-term, minor impacts

on the marine ecosystem are expected.

Cooperating Agencies and Consultation

This SEIS has been prepared by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and contractors to the agencies. 

The National Park Service has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on a protection and

restoration plan for the bull trout, and with NOAA Fisheries on a similar plan for chinook salmon. The

“Biological Opinions” for bull trout is attached as appendix B. The biological opinion for chinook

salmon, and statements of findings for floodplains and wetlands, will be included in the final SEIS.

List of Preparers and Contributors

Preparers

NAME TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION EXPERIENCE

National Park Service

Brian Winter Elwha Restoration Project Manager.

Responsible for fisheries sections. 

Ph.D. – Fisheries

M.S. – Fisheries

B.S. – Natural Resources

Planning and Interpretation

11 years NPS (Olympic

National Park), 5 years

National Marine Fisheries

Service, 8 years tribal and

private industry

Total Quality NEPA

Heidi West Team Captain

Lead writer

Ph.D. – Environmental Science

and Engineering

M.A. – Science Communication

M.S. – Biology

B.S. – Biology

25 years TQNEPA and

private industry

Thomas Carr Socioeconomic analyses J.D.– Law

Ph.D. – Economics

8 years legal, 15 years

economics and academic

experience

Kathryn Joyner Cultural resources, public health and

safety, soils

M.A. – Archeology / Anthropology

B.S. – Education

23 years cultural resource

specialist, environmental

planner, and compliance

specialist
Consultation and Coordination

202

NAME TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION EXPERIENCE

URS Corporation

Greg Sorensen Technical editor B.A. – International Affairs 24 years NPS, 5 years URS

Corporation

Contributors

NAME TITLE / SUBJECT MATTER

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

Matt Beirne Environmental Coordinator / flood protection

Carol Brown Community Development Progam Manager / wastewater

Robert Elofson Tribal Elwha River Restoration Director

Randall McCoy Graphic illustrator

Larry Ward Hatchery Manager, Restoration Biologist / tribal hatchery, fisheries 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Ellen Abart Professional Engineer – Environmental Engineer / Port Angeles and Elwha

water treatment plants, NPI improvements

Dave Adkins Civil Engineering Technician / permitting

Dick Bauman Resource Specialist / vegetation and wildlife surveys

Chuck Borda Resource Economist / socioeconomic data

Jennifer Bountry Professional Engineer – Hydraulic Engineer / sediment management

John Boutwell Research Botanist / vegetation surveys

Rod Burt Geologist / geology input

Bob Hamilton Professional Engineer, Resources Management Coordinator and Activity

Manager / general coordination and review input

Tom Hepler Professional Engineer – Civil Engineer / dam removal, Elwha surface water

intake

Dick Link LEG – Regional Geologist / geology input, stream gaging

Rick Parker Elwha Program Coordinator / hydropower operations, Dry Creek Water

Association, Elwha Heights Water Association

Tim Randle Professional Engineer – Civil Engineer / sediment management

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Zachary Corum Professional Engineer / civil and water resources engineering

URS Corporation

Xue Hua Bai Professional Engineer – Process Engineer / Port Angeles water treatment plant

Scott R. Cole Professional Engineer – Project Engineer / Port Angeles water treatment plant

Ajay Goyal Professional Engineer – Structural Engineer / Elwha surface water intake

Jim Gross Professional Engineer – Project Engineer / Elwha water treatment plant

Steve Higinbotham Professional Engineer – Structural Engineer / Elwha surface water intake

Michael S. Kelley Senior Archeologist / cultural surveys

Sarah McDaniel Archeologist / cultural surveys

Robert G. Nielsen Wildlife Biologist / project fisheries and environmental

Cameron Ochiltree Professional Engineer – Project Engineer / Elwha water treatment plant 

Jim Ris Professional Engineer, Project Manager / Nippon Paper Industries

Patricia Steinholtz Graphic illustrations
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving Copies of the SEIS

203

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving Copies of

the SEIS

Federal Agencies

Department of Agriculture

U.S. Forest Service, Olympic National Forest

Department of Defense

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Olympic Coast National

Marine Sanctuary

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation

National Park Service

Office of Public Affairs

Columbia Cascades Support Office

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Indian Tribes and Organizations

Chehalis Tribal Business Council

Hoh Tribal Business Council

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribal Council

Olympic Peninsula Intertribal Cultural Advisory

Committee

Point No Point Treaty Council

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe

Quileute Tribal Council

Quinault Indian Nation

Shoalwater Bay Tribal Council

Squaxin Island Tribal Council

Suquamish Tribal Council

U.S. Congressional Delegation

Senator Maria Cantwell 

Senator Patty Murray

Representative Norm Dicks

Washington State Delegation

Senator Jim Hargrove

Representative Jim Buck

Representative Lynn Kessler

Representative Tim Sheldon

Washington State Agencies

Department of Ecology

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Parks and Recreation

Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,

State Historic Preservation Officer

Local Agencies

Clallam County 

Commissioners

Economic Development Council

Jefferson County Commissioners

Mason County Commissioners

Grays Harbor County Commissioners

Kitsap County Commissioners

City of Forks

City of Port Angeles

City of Sequim

Organizations

Friends of Lake Crescent

Institute for Policy Research

Meridian Environmental

National Audubon Society

North Olympic Peninsula VCB

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance

Olympic Park Associates

Olympic Peninsula Audubon Society

Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce

Protect the Peninsula’s Future

Quinault Community Action Forum

REI Adventures

Sierra Club, Cascade Chapter

Sunnydale Shooting Grounds

Washington Environmental Council

The Wilderness Society

Libraries

Evergreen State College Library

Everett Public Library

King County Library System

Redmond Branch

Kitsap Regional Library

Bremerton Branch

North Olympic Library System

Clallam Bay Branch

Port Angeles Branch

Sequim Branch
Consultation and Coordination

204

Port Townsend Public Library

Seattle Public Library

Timberland Regional Library

Aberdeen Timberland Branch

Amanda Park Branch

Hoodsport Timberland Branch

Hoquiam Branch

William G. Reed Branch (Shelton, WA)

University of Washington Libraries

Washington State University, Holland Library

Newspapers and Radio Stations

Forks Forum

KONP

Peninsula Daily News

Peninsula News Network

Sequim Gazette

Individuals

Paul Birkeland

Mrs. Pat Christian

Joel Connelly

Dave Fields

W. Fleck

Dick Goin

James Hines

John LaShelle

Bruce Klanke

Donna Osseward
205

Appendixes, Glossary, 

References Cited, Index 
206
207

Appendix A: Best Management Practices 

The following best management practices would be used to minimize impacts associated with increased sediment

and turbidity levels:

1. To protect fisheries resources, construction activities for the mitigation facilities adjacent to or in waterways

shall generally occur during the dry season from July through October. 

2. If work is conducted in the active channel, water will be diverted around the project site. This measure is

designed to minimize the mobilization and transport of fine and coarse sediments from the project site

downstream, which may affect spawning gravels, substrate embeddedness, pool frequency / quality, and the

development of large pools. Any instream diversion shall be in accordance with guidelines developed by the

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

3. Excess material (spoils) shall be disposed of at least 300 feet from the active stream channels. This measure is

designed to keep fine and coarse sediments from reaching flowing waters where they can be transported

downstream and may affect spawning gravels, substrate embeddedness, pool frequency / quality, and the

development of large pools.

4. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt-laden water from entering the stream. These may include,

but are not limited to, straw bales, silt fencing, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea

gravel-filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. This measure is

designed to keep fine and coarse sediments from reaching flowing waters where they can be transported

downstream and may affect spawning gravels, substrate embeddedness, pool frequency / quality, and the

development of large pools.

5. All disturbed ground will be reclaimed by planting or seeding with native vegetation, or, in the case of small

treatment areas, allowing native vegetation to reclaim the area naturally.

6. If weather conditions during project operations generate and transport sediment to the stream channel,

operations shall cease until weather conditions improve. The operation of ground-disturbing equipment during

large precipitation events increases the potential for soil compaction and production of sediment that may be

transported to flowing waters. This measure is designed to reduce the production of fine and coarse sediments;

if these sediments reach the stream channel, they may affect spawning gravels, substrate embeddedness, pool

frequency / quality, and the development of large pools.

7. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area will be routed to an area

landward of the ordinary high waterline to allow for removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to

being discharged to the stream. Sediment entering the stream channel may affect spawning gravels, substrate

embeddedness, pool frequency / quality, and the development of large pools. Chemical contaminants may have

a negative biological effect on many forms of aquatic life, including salmonids and macroinvertebrates.

8. All equipment shall be operated as far from the water’s edge as possible. 

9. All project leaders will contact a park fishery biologist prior to construction in areas where spawning fish may

occur.

10. No construction staging areas will be allowed within 300 feet of any waterway.

11. Hazardous spill clean-up materials will be on site at all times. This measure is designed to avoid or minimize

the introduction of chemical contaminants associated with machinery (fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, etc.) used in

project implementation. Chemicals may have a toxic effect on aquatic organisms, including salmonids. 
Appendixes

208

12. Any machinery maintenance involving potential contaminants (fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, etc.) will occur outside

the riparian area, defined as the entire channel migration zone or a distance greater than 150 feet from the

stream edge. This measure is designed to avoid or minimize the introduction of chemical contaminants

associated with machinery used in project implementation. Chemicals may have a toxic effect on aquatic

organisms, including salmonids.

13. Prior to starting work each day, all machinery will be inspected for leaks (fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, etc.), and all

necessary repairs will be made before the commencement of work. This measure is designed to avoid or

minimize the introduction of chemical contaminants associated with machinery used in project implementation.

Chemicals may have a toxic effect on aquatic organisms, including salmonids. 

14. Spill kits will be present at all construction sites. The desired outcome is to control, absorb, or contain the spill

for clean-up and disposal.
209

Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service
Appendixes

210
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

211
Appendixes

212
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

213
Appendixes

214
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

215
Appendixes

216
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

217
Appendixes

218
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

219
Appendixes

220
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

221
Appendixes

222
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

223
Appendixes

224
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

225
Appendixes

226
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

227
Appendixes

228
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

229
Appendixes

230
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

231
Appendixes

232
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

233
Appendixes

234
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

235
Appendixes

236
Appendix B: Final Biological Opinion — U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

237
238

Glossary

A

adfluvial population — Refers to fish that live in lakes and migrate into streams to spawn. 

affected environment — Existing biological, physical, social, and economic conditions of an area that are subject

to change, both directly and indirectly as a result of a proposed human action.

agglomeration site — The surface (such as a lamella plate) where suspended particles can efficiently collect and

form a larger particle. During processes such as water treatment, these larger particles (called floccules) settle out of

solution more rapidly than individual particles would.

aggradation — Process of raising the level of a streambed, floodplain or sandbar by deposition of sediment.

alluvium — Sediments that are transported and deposited by streams and rivers such as clay, silt, sand, gravel,

cobbles, and boulders.

anadromous fish — Species of fish such as salmon, which hatch in freshwater, spend a large part of their lives in

the ocean, and return to freshwater to reproduce.

armoring — Progressive removal of finer grained sediments from a streambed leaving a layer of coarser sediment

that is less easily eroded.

artificial constant head — Hydraulic head maintained by artificial means.

attenuate — To weaken or reduce the force of something such as flood waters.

B

bedload — Coarse sediment (sand, gravel, cobble or rock fragments) transported along the bottom of a stream and

frequently in contact with it.

blinding — Infilling of the upper layer of riverbed materials with fine sediment to such a degree that the surface

may be “sealed” and unable to pass water in the quantities needed.

butterfly valve — A mechanical device used to control the flow of water in a pipeline. This valve contains a

circular leaf which is located in the center of the pipe and rotates 90 degrees to regulated the flow of water in the

pipeline.

C

caisson — A watertight structure in which underwater structures are housed.

capacitor — An electric circuit element used to temporarily store an electrical charge.

cfs — Cubic feet per second. A cubic foot of water passing a reference point in 1 second of time.

channel storage — Sediment or water that is temporarily stored in between the banks of a river channel.

cofferdam –— A temporary dam allowing dewatering of a portion of a river or lake for construction purposes.

constant head — The force or pressure acting on a system that does not vary. This force or pressure is applied from

a constant water level.
Glossary

239

D

discount rate — The rate at which future benefits and costs are discounted because of positive time preference, or

because of the existence of a positive real rate of power (i.e., placing higher value on current consumption or income

than accruing it in the future).

E

ecosystem — A community of living organisms interacting with one another and with their physical environment,

such as a forest, pond or estuary.

Eicher screens – Experimental technology to minimize fish injuries that places a screen within a penstock and uses

water velocity to carry juvenile salmonids past the screen and into a bypass pipe, thus avoiding turbines.

EIS — Environmental Impact Statement. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that an

environmental impact statement be prepared to evaluate the potential environmental affects of major federal actions.

An EIS identifies and analyzes activities that might affect the human and natural environment.

epicenter — Location on the surface of the earth above where an earthquake originates.

escapement — Adult fish that escape fishing gear to migrate upstream to spawning grounds. 

F

fine-grained sediments — Clay and silt sized particles that are smaller than 0.0030 inches (0.075 mm) in size.

fingerling — Small fish ranging in size from 1 to 3 inches.

fish ladder — An ascending structure of intervening pools of water that is built to allow fish to migrate upstream.

flocculants — Chemicals that cause small particles suspended in a solution to form clumps or masses precipitated

from a solution.

floodplain — Land adjacent to a river that is periodically subject to flooding.

fluvial population — Refers to fish that live, feed, and mature in the mainstem of a river and that migrate to

tributaries to spawn.

forebay — Impoundment immediately above a dam or hydroelectric plant intake structure. 

freeboard — The height of a structure above the recorded high-water mark.

fry — Early swimming stage of young fishes, between the egg and fingerling stages.

G

gaging station — Specific location on a stream where systematic observations of hydrologic data are obtained

through mechanical or electrical means.

gunite — Mixture of cement, sand, and water applied as a sealing agent to prevent weathering of things such as

mine timbers and roadways.

H

hydraulic gradient — The slope of the surface of open or underground water.
Glossary

240

I

infiltration gallery — One or more horizontally laid screens placed in permeable alluvial materials, either adjacent

to a water body or beneath its bed. Usually installed to supply water from aquifers where the hydraulic conductivity

is large but the transmissivity is severely limited because the deposits are thin.

in-line filtration — A water treatment filter (mechanical screening device) installed on the main water supply line.

L

lamella plates — A water clarification system that uses a series of closely spaced flat plates inclined at an angle of

45° to 60°. As water with sediment flows over the plates, heavy solids with a specific gravity higher than the

surrounding water settle onto the top surface of the plates and slide down the inclined surface to be collected and

removed. 

levee — A dike or embankment of earth or concrete that is used to prevent water from overflowing the river channel

during times of flooding.

M

maximum probable flood — The most severe flood that is considered reasonably possible at a site as a result of

hydrologic and meteorological conditions.

mitigation — Activities that will avoid, reduce the severity of, or eliminate an adverse environmental impact.

N

native anadromous fisheries — The populations of anadromous fish that historically inhabited a river.

NEPA — National Environmental Policy Act, a 1969 federal law that requires the consideration of environmental

effects of proposed federal actions.

nonpoint — Refers to the source of sediment or pollution (such as runoff from a field) that cannot be linked to a

discrete, identifiable source.

NTU — Nephelometric turbidity unit is a measurement of how much light is scattered by particles in the water.

O

oligotrophic — Body of water with low biological productivity.

outmigration — The movement of juvenile fish from freshwater to the sea. 

outplanting — Distributing of fish to suitable habitat.

outwash — Accumulation of material such as sand and gravel removed from a glacier by meltwater streams and

deposited in front of the margin of an active glacier.

P

palustrine — Nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, and emergent mosses

or lichens, or nonvegetated wetlands less than 20 acres in size.

penstock — An intake pipe from a water source to a hydroelectric turbine or powerhouse.
Glossary

241

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) — Hazardous chemical compound that may be present in electrical power

transformers.

post tension anchors — A method of providing stability by holding components of a structure together using steel

cables or tendons.

R

Ranney well — A method of collecting groundwater through buried perforated pipes, often placed under riverbeds.

real costs — Costs that do not account for inflation.

residualism — Typically refers to anadromous trout or salmon juveniles that remain in fresh water instead of

migrating to the ocean.

riffle — A shallow extending across a streambed and causing broken water.

riparian — Typically refers to vegetation found along waterways and shorelines that is adapted to moist growing

conditions and occasional flooding.

riprap — Large angular stones that are used to build or strengthen riverbanks, and structures such as dikes, levees

and spits.

roughness coefficient — Is an indicator used in modeling of the resistance to flow created by the channel bed and

banks.

run-of-the-river — Natural conditions in a river where the flow of water (discharge) has not been altered by

structures such as dams.

river stage — The elevation of a water surface above or below an established reference level, such as sea level,

same as water surface elevation.

S

salmonid — Fish within the family Salmonidae, e.g. salmon and trout.

setback levee — A levee that is located away from a stream or river, typically to minimize impacts to the

floodplain.

sluiceway — An outlet facility in a dam usually located low in the reservoir to allow for the flushing of sediments

through the reservoir.

spawning gravels — Gravel of suitable size and shape in a stream where salmonids lay their eggs.

spillway — Overflow channel of a dam.

subduction — Long narrow zone, usually along a continental margin (such as the Pacific coast) where a crustal

plate on the Earth’s surface descends beneath another plate.

substrate — Surface upon which plants or animals live or grow. 

surge tank — A storage tank on a pipeline which has a free water surface which prevents damaging pressures

during operation of the pipeline.

suspended sediments — Materials such as clay, silt, and sand that are carried in suspension by moving water, free

from contact with the stream bed.

T

tailrace — The region of high velocity water flow below the turbine discharge in a hydroelectric facility.
Glossary

242

thalweg — Line connecting the deepest points along a riverbed.

thrust block — A large mass of concrete that serves as the foundation for a concrete arch dam and is designed to

accept loads transferred from the arch dam.

till — Unlayered glacial deposit composed of clay, sand, rocks, and gravel.

trashrack — A grille-like structure on the inlet to a pipeline which prevents debris from entering the pipeline.

turbidity — The clarity of water expressed as nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and measured with a calibrated

turbidimeter. Increasing the turbidity of the water decreases the amount of light that can penetrate.

W

watershed — The area drained by a river system.

wetland — Lowland area such as a swamp or marsh that is periodically saturated with water and supports

vegetation adapted to wet areas.
243

References Cited

Bibliographic abbreviations used in the text:

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NPS National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

NWIFC Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

PNPTC Point-No-Point Treaty Council

PSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries Council

SCS Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WDF Washington Department of Fisheries

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDW Washington Department of Wildlife

Adamus, P., and L. Stockwell

1983 A Method for Wetland Function and Assessment. Vol. 1: Critical Review and Evaluation Concepts.

Report No. FHWA-IP-82-23. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Anthony, Robert G., R. J. Steidl, and K. McGarigal

1995 “Recreation and Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest.” In Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence

through Management and Research, edited by Richard L. Knight and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, 223–41.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Aubrey, K. B., and D. B. Houston

1992 “Distribution and Status of the Fisher (Martes pennanti) in Washington.” Northwestern Naturalist

73:69–79.

Bachtold, L. M.

1982 “Destruction of Indian Fisheries and Impact to Indian Peoples.” In The Historic and Economic Value

of Salmon and Steelhead to Treaty Fisheries in River Systems in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. A

report to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Meyer-Zangri Associates.

Berryman & Henigar

2003 “Wastewater System Conceptual Engineering Study” (March 28). Prepared for the Lower Elwha

Klallam Tribe. 

Birkeland, P. W.

1974 Pedology, Weathering, and Geomorphological Research. London: Oxford University Press.

Bowles, Ann E. 

1995 “Responses of Wildlife to Noise.” In Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through Management

and Research, edited by Richard L. Knight and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, 109–56. Washington, DC: Island

Press.

Brannon, E. L., R. P. Whitman, and T. P. Quinn

1981 “Report on the Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on the Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook

Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).” Final Report to the Office of Water Research and Technology,

U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC.

Brannon, E. M.

1930 “Elwha River and Hatchery Prospect.” Department of Fisheries and Game, Olympia, WA. 
References Cited

244

Brinson, M. M., B. L. Swift, R. C. Pluntico, and J. S. Barclay

1981 Riparian Ecosystems: Their Ecology and Status. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern Energy Land

Use Team, National Water Resources Analysis Group, Kearneysville, WV.

Brown, E. R.

1985 Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. Part 2-

Appendixes. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Bull, E. L., and M. Snider

1993 “Master Carpenter — Species Profile: Pileated Woodpecker.” Wildbird (Feb.).

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor

2003 “Fatal Occupational Injuries by Industry and Event or Exposure, All United States, 2002.”

Washington, DC.

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior

1995 Overview of Ground-Water Conditions. Elwha Technical Series PN-95-3. Pacific Northwest Region,

Boise, ID.

1996 Sediment Analysis and Modeling of the River Erosion Alternative. Elwha Technical Services, PN-95-9.

Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, ID.

1997 Water Quality Analysis and Mitigation Measures, Elwha River Restoration Project, Washington.

Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, ID.

2001 Lower Elwha River Groundwater Resource Evaluation. 

2003a “Field Investigations of the Flora and Fauna along the Lower Elwha River, June 2003.” 

2003b “Value Engineering Final Report: Elwha Water Treatment Plant, Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries

Restoration Project, August 27, 2003.” Technical Service Center, Denver, CO.

California Public Utilities Commission 

1999 “Tri-Valley Project PEA, Chapter 12: Noise.” San Francisco, CA.

Cederholm, C. J., D. B. Houston, D. L. Cole, and W. J. Scarlett

1989 “Fate of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Carcasses in Spawning Streams.” Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46(8):1347–55.

Clallam County, Washington

n.d. “Clallam County Environmental Policy, Part Two: Wetlands.” Available at <http://www.mrsc.org/mc/

clallam/clalla27.html>. Site visited Jan. 29, 2004.

Cole, David N., and Peter B. Landres

1995 “Indirect Effects of Recreation on Wildlife.” In Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through

Management and Research, edited by Richard L. Knight and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, 183–202.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Collins, D. C.

1983 A Report on Rainbow Trout Populations from the Elwha River, Lake Aldwell and Lake Mills.

Washington Department of Game.

Crain, P. V. 

1992 “Predation by Planted Hatchery Reared Coho Salmon Smolts (Oncorynchus kisutch) on Native Pink

Salmon Fry (O. gorbuscha).” M.S. thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Daugherty, R. D., and J. M. Welch

1984 “Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Morse Creek Hydroelectric Project.” Submitted to

Schuchart and Associates, Inc. Seattle. Western Heritage, Inc.

DeShazo, J. J.

1980 Sea-run Cutthroat Trout Management in Washington: An Overview. Washington State Game

Department.
References Cited

245

Douglas, D. C., J. T. Ratti, R. A. Black, and J. R. Alldredge

1992 “Avian Habitat Associations in Riparian Zones of Idaho’s Centennial Mountains.” The Wilson Bulletin

104 (3):485–500.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 

1999 “Asbestos Survey, Lead-Based Paint Survey, and Soil Cleanup Assistance.” 

Environmental Protection Agency

1976 Quality Criteria for Water. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

1993 Draft Staff Report, Glines Canyon (FERC No. 588) and Elwha (FERC No. 2683) Hydroelectric

Projects, Washington. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Hydropower Licensing. 

Forsman, E. D., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wright

1984 “Distribution and Biology of the Spotted Owl in Oregon.” Wildlife Monographs 87:1–64.

Fresh, K. L., and S. L. Schroder

1987 “Influence of the Abundance, Size, and Yolk Reserves of Juvenile Chum Salmon (Oncorynchus keta)

on Predation by Freshwater Fishes in a Small Coastal Stream.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences 44:236–43.

Gathard Engineering and Consulting Services and Larry Ward

1998 “Investigation of Filtration of Suspended Sediment through Riverbed Alluvium. Lower Elwha Fish

Hatchery Infiltration Gallery.” Port Angeles, WA. 

Gerdon, R. M.

1994 Revenue Comparisons / Current Expense. Clallam County Treasurer’s Office, Port Angeles, WA.

Gladwin, D. N., Asherin, D. A. and K. M. Manci 

1987 Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on Fish and Wildlife: Results of a Survey of USFWS

Endangered Species and Ecological Services Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcheries, and Research

Centers. NERC-88/30. National Ecology Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort

Collins, CO.

Gregory, S. V., F. H. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins

1991 “An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian Zones,” BioScience 41 (8):540–51.

Grubb, Teryl E., W. M. Bowerman, J. P. Geisy, and G. A. Dawson

1992 “Responses of Breeding Bald Eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, to Human Activities in Northcentral

Michigan,” Canadian Field-Naturalist 106 (4): 443–53. 

Hathorn, A. W., C. Byrnes, T. DaSilva, P. Happe

1996 “Marbled Murrelet Surveys in the Lower Elwha River Valley, Olympic National Park and Vicinity —

1996 Project Completion Report.” Prepared for Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA.

Hitchcock, C. L., and A. Cronquist

1973 Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Hoines, L. 

1994 1991 Fisheries Statistical Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Technical Report,

Olympia, WA.

James River II, Inc.

1988 “Responses to May 28, 1987 Request for Additional Information.” Prepared by Hosey & Associates.

May 27 and December 2.

1990 “Responses to Requests for Additional Information.” Prepared by Hosey & Associates. February 15,

April 16, May 1, and September 27.

Johnson, R. C.

1973 Potential Intraspecific Problems between Hatchery Coho Smolt and Juvenile Pink and Chum Salmon

(March). Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA. 
References Cited

246

Johnston, J. M., and S. P. Mercer

1976 Sea-run Cutthroat in Saltwater Pens, Broodstock Development and Extended Juvenile Rearing (with

Life History Compendium). Fishery Research Report, Washington State Game Department, Olympia,

WA.

Jordan, M.

1995 “Trumpeter and Tundra Swans Wintering on the Olympic Peninsula in Relation to the Elwha River

Restoration Project.” Prepared for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.

Knight, Richard L., and D. N. Cole

1995 “Wildlife Responses to Recreationists.” In Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through

Management and Research, edited by Richard L. Knight and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, 81–91. Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Lewis, Jeffrey C., and Derek W. Stinson 

1998 “Washington State Status Report for the Fisher.” Wildlife Management Program, Washington State

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Mausolf, R. G., and D. B. Sundvick

1976 A Report on the Limnology and Biota of the Reservoir Created by the Glines Canyon Dam. Report

submitted to Crown Zellerbach Corporation.

Mattfield, G.

1974 “The Energetics of Winter Foraging by White-tailed Deer: A Perspective on Winter.” Ph.D. thesis,

State University of New York.

McHenry, M. L.

2002 “Elwha River Temperature Monitoring: 1992–2001 Summary.” Fisheries Department, Elwha Klallam

Tribe, Port Angeles, WA.

McLeay, D. J.

1983 “Effects on Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) of Short-term Exposure to Yukon Placer Mining

Sediments: Laboratory and Field Studies.” Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences no. 1171. Ottawa, Canada.

Meyer, P. A., R. Lichtkoppler, R. B. Hamilton, C. L. Borda, D. A. Harpman, and P. M. Engle

1995 Elwha River Restoration Project: Economic Analysis. A Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the

National Park Service, and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. Davis, CA.

Morrill, D. C., and M. L. McHenry

1995 “1994 Elwha River Fish Community Study.” Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Draft Technical Report.

Port Angeles, WA.

Naiman, R. J., H. Decamps, and M. Pollock

1993 “The Role of Riparian Corridors in Maintaining Regional Biodiversity” Ecological Applications 3 (2):

209–12.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

1983 “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation.” Federal Register

48:44716. Amended and annotated standards available at <http://www.cr.nps.gov/ locallaw/arch_stnds_0.htm>.

1989 Statement for Management, Olympic National Park. Port Angeles, WA.

1990 “1990 Harlequin Duck Surveys, Stehekin River, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Washington.”

On file at North Cascades National Park, Sedro Woolley, WA.

1993 “Special Directive 93-4, Floodplain Management — Revised Guidelines for National Park Service

Floodplain Compliance.” (Aug. 11). Washington, DC.

1994 Report to Congress on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System. Washington, DC. 

1995 Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration: Final Environmental Impact Statement.
References Cited

247

1996a Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (April).

Denver Service Center.

1996b Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Final Environmental Impact Statement

(November). Abbreviated final environmental impact statement. Denver Service Center.

1997 “Cultural Resources Management Guideline.” Washington, DC.

2000 Management Policies 2001. Washington, DC.

2002 “Chinook Biological Assessment, Elwha River Restoration Project.” Available at Olympic National

Park, Port Angeles, WA.

2003 “Pinnacles National Monument — Bear Gulch Caves Management: Townsend Big-eared Bats.”

Available at <http://www.nps.gov/pinn/cavebats.htm>. Site visited Dec. 31, 2003.

2004 Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Compilation of the 1996 Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Draft and Final

Environmental Impact Statements. Prepared by URS Corporation for the National Park Service. On file

at Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA.

National Park Service, Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe, the Washington State Historic Preservation Office, and the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1995 “Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe, the

Washington State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Regarding Restoration of the Elwha River Ecosystem.” On file at Olympic National Park, Port

Angeles, WA. Reprinted as appendix 5 in Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (National Park Service, April 1996).

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

1995 “MHCLS Database (Microcomputer Historical Catch and Landing System).” Olympia, WA.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Council

1995 “Pacific States Marine Fisheries Council Database.”

Peterson, N. P.

1980 “The Role of Spring Ponds in the Winter Ecology and Natural Production of Coho Salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington.” M.S. thesis. University of

Washington.

Peterson, N. P., and L. M. Reid

1984 “Wall-Base Channels: Their Evolution, Distribution, and Use by Juvenile Coho Salmon in the

Clearwater River, Washington.” In Proceedings of the Olympic Wild Fish Conference. Peninsula

College, Port Angeles, Washington, edited by J. M. Walton and D. B. Houston, 215–25.

Point-No-Point Treaty Council and Makah Tribe

1994 1994 Management Framework Plan and Salmon Runs’ Status for the Strait of Juan de Fuca Region.

Kingston, WA.

Point-No-Point Treaty Council and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

1994 1993–94 Winter and Summer Steelhead Forecasts and Management Recommendations. Technical

Report. Kingston, WA.

Point-No-Point Treaty Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Makah Tribe

2003 Management Framework Plan. 

Reisenbichler, R. 

1999 “Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration: Potential Effects and Restoration Methods — Fisheries

Investigations.” Western Fisheries Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Seattle, WA.

Ridolfi Inc.

2002 “Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Feasibility Study, Phase I Report.” Seattle, WA.
References Cited

248

Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre

1993 “Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout.” General Technical Report

INT-3302. Forest Service, Boise, ID.

Schalk, R., L. A. Speulda, and D. Conca

1996 “Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Project, Cultural Resources Survey.” Submitted to Lower Elwha

Klallam Tribe. Infotec Research, Inc.

Schroder, S., and K. Fresh.

1985 Biological Characteristics of Resident Populations of Chinook and Coho Salmon. Final Report to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Project F-76-R. April.

Schroeder, R. L.

1983 Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pileated Woodpecker. FWS/OBS-82/10.39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman

1973 Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa.

Sharpe, F. A.

1990 “Elwha River Basin Preliminary Bird Checklist. May 16, 1990.” Unpublished report.

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1987 “Soil Survey of Clallam County Area, Washington.” 

Somer, W. L., and T. J. Hassler 

1992 “Effects of Suction-Dredge Gold Mining on Benthic Invertebrates in a Northern California Stream.”

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:244–52.

Stalmaster, M. V, and J. A. Gessaman

1984 “Ecological Energetics and Foraging Behavior of Overwintering Bald Eagles.” Ecological

Monographs 54:407–28.

Stemp, R. 

1983 “Heart Rate Responses of Bighorn Sheep to Environmental Factors and Harassment.” M.S. thesis,

Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary.

Swales, S., and C. D. Levings

1985 “Winter Habitat Preferences of Juvenile Salmonids in Two Interior Rivers in British Columbia, 1986.”

Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:1506–14.

Swanson, E. J., and J. F Franklin

1992 “New Forestry Principles from Ecosystem Analysis of Pacific Northwest Forests.” Ecological

Applications 2 (3).

Trotter, P. C. 

1989 “Coastal Cutthroat Trout: A Life History Compendium.” Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 118:463–73.

URS Corporation

2001 “Lower Elwha River Groundwater Resource Evaluation, Port Angeles Washington.”

2002a “Conceptual Site Comparison for Proposed Industrial / Fisheries / Municipal Intake on Elwha River.”

Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation (Dec. 31).

2002b “Dry Creek Water Association Feasibility Study, Cultural Resources / Environmental Investigation.”

Letter report. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation (Oct. 4).

2002c “Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation — Project Planning Report” (Jan. 14). Draft report. Prepared

for M&I Water Users Group Review. Denver, CO.

2003a “Dry Creek Water Association Water Supply Mitigation Feasibility Study, Appraisal Level Evaluation,

Port Angeles, Washington.” Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation (Jan. 13). 
References Cited

249

2003b “Elwha Water Treatment Plant Environmental Review Document” (Apr. 7).

2003c “Elwha Water Treatment Plant: Equipment Noise Information.” Letter report. Prepared for Bureau of

Reclamation, Boise ID (Aug. 21).

2003d “Elwha Water Treatment Plant Predesign, Access Road Study” (June 6).

2003e “Elwha Water Treatment Plant Predesign, Clallam County, Washington. Report of Geotechnical

Investigation for the Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant.” Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation

(May 28). 

2003f “Elwha Water Treatment Plant Predesign, Clallam County, Washington. Report of Geotechnical

Investigation for the Elwha Water Treatment Plant.” Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation (June

12).

2003g “Elwha Water Treatment Plan Predesign, Clallam Co., WA. D-04200 Basis of Design for the Elwha

Water Treatment Plant.” Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation (Aug. 4).

2003h Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant, D-1101, Design Criteria (February).

2004a “Environmental Resources Letter Report, Supplemental Geotechnical, Environmental and Cultural

Resource Investigation for Elwha River Restoration.” Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation (July

16).

2004b “Cultural Resource Letter Report, Supplemental Geotechnical, Environmental and Cultural Resource

Investigation for Elwha River Restoration.” Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation (July 30). 

2004c “Evaluation and Recommendations for the Nippon Paper Industries Water Treatment Plant Facilities.”

(Jan. 28). 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1971 Report on Survey, Ediz Hook Erosion Control, Port Angeles, Washington. Part 2 of main report.

Seattle District, Seattle, WA.

1987 Elwha River, Washington Flood Damage Reduction Study Final Section 205 Definite Project Report,

Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Environmental Assessment.

1995a Elwha River Restoration Project — Flooding Impacts Associated with Removal of the Elwha and

Glines Canyon Dams, by James L. Lencioni.

1995b Elwha River Restoration Project, Development of Flood Hydrographs. January.

2003 Flooding Impacts Associated with Removal of Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams — Revised. March.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation

2000 National Transportation Statistics. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, and Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe

1994 The Elwha Report. Washington, DC.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

1993 “Level I Preacquisition Contaminants Survey for the Elwha Restoration Project, Clallam County,

Washington.” Letter to Assistant Regional Director — Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Portland, Oregon, Nov. 22. Olympia, WA.

1995a “1995 Survey of Trumpeter Swans in North America” compiled by David F. Caithamer, Office of

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11500 American Holly Drive, Laurel,

MD 20708-4016.

1995b “Revised Level 2 Preacquisition survey of the Elwha Restoration Project-Glines Canyon Switchyard.”

Letter to Assistant Regional Director — Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,

Oregon, Mar. 20. Olympia, WA.

1996 “Biological Opinion in Regard to the Elwha River Restoration Project, FWS Reference, 1-3-96-FWS334.” North Pacific Coast Ecoregion, Western Washington Office, Olympia, WA. Reprinted as
References Cited

250

appendix 7 in Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation: Final Environmental Impact

Statement (National Park Service, November 1996).

2000 “Final Biological Opinion for Bull Trout, Elwha River Restoration Project.” FWS 1-3-00-F-0606

(February). North Pacific Coast Ecoregion, Western Washington Office, Olympia, WA.

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1988 From the Forest to the Sea: A Story of Fallen Trees. C. Maser, R. F. Tarrant, J. M. Trappe, and J. F

Franklin, technical editors. Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR229.

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the

Interior

1994 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional

and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute

2003 “Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents: Factbook 2000.” Center for National Truck Statistics, Ann Arbor,

MI.

Verner, J., and A. S. Boss

1980 California Wildlife and Their Habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. General Technical Report PSW-37.

Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

1993 “Sport Fish Stocked into the Elwha River; 1981–1992, Outplanting Database.” Olympia, WA.

1994 Status Report of Harlequin Ducks in Washington.

1995a “Data on Priority Habitats and Species, and Natural Wildlife Heritage.” Denver Service Center files.

1995b “1995 Puget Sound Coho Preliminary Preseason Forecast.” Memo from J. Parkhurst to Puget Sound

Fisheries Biologists, Feb. 10.

Washington Department of Fisheries

1971 Elwha River Fisheries Studies. Management and Research Division.

1984 Strategic Plan for Managing Washington Salmon Stocks: Washington Salmon Stock Inventory,

Appendixes G-I (November). Harvest Management Division, Olympia, WA.

1988 Washington State Sport Catch Report — 1987. Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Wildlife

1991 Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats and Species, edited by E. Rodrick

and R. Milner, technical editors. Wildlife Management, Fish Management, and Habitat Management

Divisions.

Washington Department of Transportation

2003 “1996 State Highway Accidents by Roadway Surface and Region; 1996 State Highway Accident Data

by County.” Olympia, WA. 

Wetzel, R. G.

1975 Limnology. Philadelphia: B. Saunders Co.

White, W., D. Stalheim, and R. James

1992 Clallam County Profile. Department of Community Development, Port Angeles, WA.

Whitman, R. P., T. P. Quinn, and F. L. Brannon

1982 “Influence of Suspended Volcanic Ash on Homing Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon.” Transactions

of the American Fisheries Society 111:63–69.
251

Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Ames

1975 A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Vol. 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington

Department of Fisheries, Olympia, WA.

Wunderlich, R. C.

1983 “A Preliminary Assessment of Juvenile Salmon Mortality through the Elwha River Dams.” U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA.

Wydoski, R. S., and R. R. Whitney

1979 Inland Fishes of Washington. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Zinicola, T.

1994 1992 Washington State Sport Catch Report. Technical report. Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

Personal Communications

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior

2002 “Review of Dry Creek Water Association Alternate Well Field Site, Elwha River Restoration,

Washington.” Memo from Dick Link (Regional Geologist) and Kayti Didricksen (Hydrogeologist) to

Brian Winter (Manager, Elwha River Restoration Project), March 26.

Carr, Thomas (Total Quality NEPA)

2003 Personal communication about salmon farming operations. January.

Crain, Pat (Clallam County)

2001 Personal communication regarding impact of commercial salmon farming operations on local

fishermen. September. 

2003 Personal communication regarding soil surveys/mapping, flooding.

DeMond, Brett (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)

2002 Memo to Brian Winter (NPS), about water quality in Morse Creek, Sept. 4.

Farinas, Manuel (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)

1999 Memo to Dr. Brian Winter (NPS) on impacts associated with surrendering a PUC license for hydro

facility on Morse Creek at RM 5.5.

2003 Memo to Brian Winter, “Environmental Analysis on Morse Creek.”

Gary Graves (Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission)

1995 Personal communication regarding steelhead trout, Oct. 20.

Hepler, T. (Bureau of Reclamation)

2003 Personal communication regarding water supply mitigation measures, October.

Jordan, M.

2003 Personal communication regarding trumpeter swans, October.

McMillan, Anita (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)

1995 Personal communication regarding bald eagle nesting, September.

Pess, George (National Marine Fisheries Service)

2003 Personal communication regarding bull trout in the Elwha River.

Schirzto, Greg (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)

1994 Personal communication regarding harlequin duck nesting habitat, Oct. 7.

Whitlam, Robert G. (Washington State Archeologist)

1984 Letter to Jay Rowen (Program Specialist, City of Port Angeles). March 9.
252

Index

A

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 183, 184

air quality

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

program, xiv, 83

Altaire campground, 27, 28, 29, 56, 85, 94, 97, 101,

102

amphibians, 154, 156

archeological resources, 188, 189, 190, 191

archeological sites, xv, 84, 86, 185, 186, 187

B

bald eagle, xiv, 75, 77, 156, 162, 163, 167, 173

best management practices, viii, x, xvi, 39, 40, 51,

52, 112, 113, 115, 123, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138,

139, 141, 142, 170, 171, 197, 198

birds, 53, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 155, 156, 158,

167, 168, 200

black-tailed deer, xii, 74, 153, 158

brook lamprey, ix, xiv, 53, 61, 82, 167, 173

bull trout, vi, ix, xi, xiii, xiv, 4, 6, 11, 38, 39, 40, 52,

53, 61, 63, 80, 81, 82, 113, 128, 130, 133, 140,

141, 150, 152, 159, 161, 165, 167, 172, 173, 189,

200, 201

C

chinook salmon, vi, vii, ix, xi, xiii, xiv, 5, 6, 10, 14,

15, 20, 37, 38, 39, 40, 61, 63, 70, 77, 80, 81, 86,

89, 95, 99, 128, 130, 132, 140, 150, 152, 154, 159,

161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,

173, 180, 182, 189, 200, 201

chum salmon, ix, 13, 40, 61, 63, 80, 126, 127, 128,

129, 132

City of Port Angeles, iii, v, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiv,

4, 6, 10, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,

35, 39, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58,

59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,

81, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 94, 97, 99, 100, 105, 106,

107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 120,

121, 123, 130, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142,

145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 154, 158, 160, 174,

176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 188, 192,

199, 200

coho salmon, ix, 61, 63, 80, 81, 89, 128, 129, 132,

133, 161, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 174

control weir, xi, 16, 18, 46, 67, 68, 72, 100, 102, 112,

132, 137, 147, 148, 151, 156, 181

Crown Z Road, 16, 19, 28, 29, 68, 97, 100

cultural landscape, 85, 187, 188, 189, 190

cultural resources, vi, xv, xvi, 48, 54, 58, 84, 85, 86,

92, 96, 121, 135, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188,

189, 190, 191

cutthroat trout, ix, 61, 63, 64, 80, 128

D

dam rubble, vi, 7, 12, 43, 51, 54, 91, 174, 176

Dolly Varden, ix, 38, 61, 63, 80, 81, 128, 165

Dry Creek Water Association (DCWA), v, vii, viii,

ix, x, xi, xii, 2, 5, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 48, 50, 52, 53,

55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,

79, 84, 86, 94, 97, 101, 102, 103, 112, 116, 117,

118, 119, 120, 123, 130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 142,

144, 145, 146, 147, 151, 153, 155, 156, 160, 164,

168, 169, 174, 176, 177, 180, 186, 188

well field, v, ix, xi, xii, 6, 29, 31, 52, 53, 67, 68,

72, 73, 74, 76, 79, 84, 86, 97, 102, 103, 112,

117, 119, 120, 123, 130, 132, 135, 139, 144,

145, 146, 151, 153, 155, 156, 160, 164, 168,

169, 174, 176, 177, 180, 188

wells, xi, xii, 29, 30, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 61, 67, 68,

72, 73, 74, 84, 94, 97, 101, 103, 112, 117, 119,

130, 132, 135, 144, 145, 146, 151, 153, 156,

160, 164, 168, 169, 174, 176, 177, 180

E

Ediz Hook, 54, 56, 84, 89, 192, 193, 194, 200

Elwha campground, 27, 28, 29, 50, 85, 94, 97, 101,

102

Elwha Dam, iii, vi, ix, xv, xvi, 1, 12, 38, 40, 43, 55,

56, 57, 60, 63, 64, 66, 78, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88,

93, 95, 105, 111, 113, 126, 127, 129, 135, 145,

163, 164, 169, 172, 176, 178, 180, 185, 186, 190,

192, 196, 197, 199

Elwha Heights, v, 20, 22, 31, 33, 68, 73, 74, 76, 86,

147, 151, 156, 188

Elwha Place Homeowners’ Association (EPHA), viii,

27, 28, 29, 58, 60, 61, 94, 97, 99, 123

Elwha Ranger Station, xv, 27, 28, 29, 50, 56, 85, 94,

97, 102, 186

historic district, 85

Elwha surface water intake, xi, 16, 18, 42, 45, 46, 50,

67, 86, 100, 110, 111, 112, 113, 120, 131, 132,

144, 147, 148, 151, 156, 157, 169, 170, 171, 181

Elwha Valley Road, 28, 29, 56, 97, 101, 102

Elwha water treatment plant (EWTP), v, viii, ix, x, xi,

xii, xv, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 21, 29, 42, 46, 50, 51, 52,

53, 54, 59, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 86, 100,

109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 131, 133, 134,

136, 137, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 151, 153, 154,
Index

253

155, 157, 158, 160, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 174,

176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 187, 191, 197

ethnographic resources, xv, 84

ethnographic sites, 188

evolutionarily significant unit (ESU), 37, 80, 128,

164

F

federal levee. See lower Elwha federal flood control

levee

fisheries, iii, iv, vii, viii, ix, 1, 16, 19, 21, 37, 39, 44,

45, 46, 48, 52, 55, 58, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 84, 87,

88, 89, 91, 110, 113, 115, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130,

133, 136, 161, 166, 167, 171, 182, 186, 191, 193,

199, 200

flooding, iv, vi, vii, viii, 2, 5, 6, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 41,

48, 50, 58, 66, 67, 78, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99,

100, 101, 104, 111, 118, 119, 186, 187, 190, 194,

200

floodplain, vi, vii, viii, xi, 5, 10, 18, 25, 28, 31, 34,

50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 68, 69, 72, 73, 85,

86, 87, 92, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,

112, 117, 118, 119, 120, 131, 132, 139, 144, 145,

146, 149, 151, 156, 157, 186, 187, 188, 189, 200

G

Glines Canyon Dam, iii, xiii, 1, 7, 12, 40, 43, 55, 56,

78, 82, 83, 85, 87, 88, 93, 96, 102, 126, 128, 159,

160, 163, 168, 172, 173, 176, 177, 178, 182, 185,

192, 196

groundwater, iv, v, vii, viii, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 20,

30, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 58, 59,

60, 61, 67, 91, 95, 106, 107, 110, 116, 117, 118,

119, 120, 121, 123, 140, 143, 200

wells, v, vi, viii, 5, 9, 14, 15, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34,

41, 44, 45, 48, 50, 58, 60, 61, 92, 94, 95, 96, 99,

101, 103, 107, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 136, 197

H

Halberg property, xi, xii, 25, 41, 53, 69, 73, 74, 75,

79, 93, 98, 103, 110, 111, 141, 144, 149, 151, 153,

154, 157, 158, 160, 163, 169, 190, 194

harlequin duck, xiv, 78, 162, 163, 167, 168, 173

hazardous materials, xvi, 10, 43, 54, 89, 90, 136, 138,

195, 196, 197, 198

historic resources, 95, 183, 184, 187, 188, 190

I

impairment, vi, viii, ix, x, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, 8, 9,

91, 92, 93, 96, 104, 105, 107, 115, 116, 123, 125,

129, 134, 135, 142, 143, 145, 152, 153, 155, 160,

162, 167, 174, 175, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 186,

190

Indian Creek, 45, 60, 64, 84

industrial intake channel, v, 58, 144, 145, 148, 157,

164, 165

industrial water supply, 27, 28, 29, 45, 94, 97, 100

L

Lake Aldwell, xii, 1, 15, 43, 55, 56, 60, 63, 76, 78,

105, 106, 126, 153, 165, 185

Lake Mills, xii, 1, 11, 38, 40, 43, 51, 55, 63, 76, 77,

78, 82, 85, 105, 106, 111, 119, 130, 165, 169, 171,

172, 180

levees, v, vii, x, xi, xii, xiv, 6, 10, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28,

29, 41, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 69, 75, 79,

84, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 103, 111, 112, 126,

132, 139, 140, 142, 144, 149, 151, 154, 157, 158,

160, 168, 169, 170, 173, 181, 183, 189

lower Elwha federal flood control levee, v, vii, ix,

x, xi, xii, xv, 6, 10, 22, 24, 25, 34, 51, 53, 57, 69,

73, 74, 77, 84, 86, 93, 94, 95, 98, 102, 103, 104,

111, 112, 126, 131, 134, 135, 139, 140, 142,

144, 149, 151, 154, 157, 160, 168, 170, 174,

176, 177, 180, 181, 183, 189, 194

privately owned levee (west bank), 10, 27, 29, 56,

73, 84, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 112, 131,

135, 139, 140, 149, 157, 158, 168, 180

Little River, 45, 101

long-eared myotis, xiii, 77, 162

long-legged myotis, 77, 163

lower Elwha federal flood control levee, v, vii, ix, x,

xi, xii, xv, 6, 10, 22, 24, 25, 34, 51, 53, 57, 69, 73,

74, 77, 84, 86, 93, 94, 95, 98, 102, 103, 104, 111,

112, 126, 131, 134, 135, 139, 140, 142, 144, 149,

151, 154, 157, 160, 168, 170, 176, 177, 180, 183,

189, 194

Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation, vii, 6, 11, 27, 34,

57, 58, 60, 61, 116, 117, 158

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, iv, v, vii, viii, ix, x, 2,

16, 22, 34, 39, 40, 47, 48, 58, 60, 61, 64, 86, 88,

116, 117, 120, 123, 124, 127, 136, 140, 142, 144,

150, 166, 185, 186, 187, 189, 194, 199, 201

tribal fish hatchery, v, vi, vii, xii, 5, 14, 15, 16, 19,

22, 37, 41, 48, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 67, 69, 75,

103, 106, 109, 110, 112, 127, 131, 135, 139,

141, 144, 149, 151, 157, 158, 160, 165, 168,

171, 180, 186, 190

M

marbled murrelet, xiii, xiv, 11, 40, 75, 78, 162, 166,

167, 168, 171, 173

Morse Creek, vii, viii, ix, xi, xii, 10, 18, 39, 44, 45,

50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 70, 74, 75, 77, 78, 84, 86, 113,
Index

254

114, 115, 124, 132, 134, 140, 145, 150, 152, 154,

159, 160, 168, 170, 171, 172, 177, 180, 182, 189,

200

holding/rearing ponds, xi, xii, 53, 70, 150, 152,

154, 159, 160, 170, 172, 180, 182

municipal water supply, iv, v, 2, 4, 20, 46, 73, 109,

111, 136, 186

N

National Register of Historic Places, xv, 85, 86, 183,

184, 185

Nippon Paper Industries (NPI), v, xiv, xvi, 5, 13, 16,

18, 19, 46, 58, 59, 83, 100, 106, 109, 110, 192, 193

northern goshawk, xiii, 78, 162

northern red-legged frog, xiv, 76, 156, 157, 173

northern spotted owl, xiii, xiv, 78, 162, 168, 173, 180

P

Pacific fisher, xiii, xiv, 76, 162, 166, 167, 173

Pacific lamprey, xiv, 53, 61, 80, 82, 167, 173

pileated woodpecker, xii, xiii, xiv, 53, 75, 79, 153,

162, 163, 167, 169, 173

pink salmon, ix, 13, 61, 63, 80, 83, 126, 127, 128,

132, 161, 200

Port Angeles Harbor, 56, 192

Port Angeles water treatment plant (PAWTP), v, x,

xi, xii, xiv, 10, 16, 19, 21, 22, 52, 53, 69, 73, 74,

75, 84, 86, 110, 111, 112, 130, 137, 142, 145, 151,

154, 158, 160, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182,

185, 188, 200

prehistoric resources, 188

privately owned levee (west bank), 10, 84, 95, 98, 99,

102, 103, 112, 131, 135, 139, 140, 149, 157, 158,

168, 180

R

rainbow trout, 62, 63, 64, 128, 132

Ranney collector well, v, vii, 4, 9, 15, 20, 21, 22, 30,

44, 45, 46, 50, 55, 58, 59, 61, 67, 84, 99, 100, 106,

107, 109, 111, 112, 116, 131, 137, 144, 149

Port Angeles, 27, 28, 29, 58, 60, 94, 97, 99, 107,

108, 116, 123, 135, 136

reptiles, xii, 76

revegetation, iv, 2, 7, 10, 42, 91, 113, 115, 133, 135,

136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 149, 170, 182, 186, 190,

197

riparian

habitat, ix, 72, 73, 74, 95, 143, 162, 169

vegetation, xi, xii, xiv, 9, 10, 42, 48, 52, 67, 69, 73,

95, 126, 128, 132, 144, 145, 147, 148, 151, 153,

156, 159, 160, 170, 174

zone, x, 67, 95, 143, 146

Roosevelt elk, xii, 8, 74, 152, 153

S

safety, 49

sediment, iii, iv, v, vii, viii, ix, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12,

13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 30, 34, 40, 41, 44,

46, 48, 55, 56, 58, 65, 66, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99,

101, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114,

117, 118, 119, 120, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,

134, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 170, 172, 173, 186,

192, 193, 200

septic systems, iv, v, viii, 2, 4, 6, 11, 34, 35, 50, 51,

60, 61, 116, 117, 118, 120, 140

sockeye salmon, ix, 61, 64, 80, 127, 128

species of concern

chum salmon, ix, 13, 40, 61, 63, 80, 126, 127, 128,

129, 132

cutthroat trout, ix, 61, 63, 64, 80, 128

Dolly Varden, ix, 38, 61, 63, 80, 81, 128, 165

harlequin duck, xiv, 78, 162, 163, 167, 168, 173

long-eared myotis, xiii, 77, 162

long-legged myotis, 77, 163

northern goshawk, xiii, 78, 162

northern red-legged frog, xiv, 76, 156, 157, 173

Pacific fisher, xiii, xiv, 76, 162, 166, 167, 173

Pacific lamprey, xiv, 53, 61, 80, 82, 167, 173

pileated woodpecker, xii, xiii, xiv, 53, 75, 79, 153,

162, 163, 167, 169, 173

pink salmon, ix, 13, 61, 63, 80, 83, 126, 127, 128,

132, 161, 200

plant species, 82

sockeye salmon, ix, 61, 64, 80, 127, 128

tailed frog, xiii, xiv, 53, 76, 79, 157, 164, 167, 169,

173

western toad, xiii, xiv, 79, 154, 162, 167, 173

steelhead trout, ix, 39, 40, 61, 63, 64, 89, 126, 127,

128, 132, 133, 171

surface water, iv, v, vii, viii, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 16, 20,

21, 30, 41, 42, 46, 47, 55, 58, 59, 60, 67, 94, 102,

103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113,

114, 115, 117, 119, 123, 126, 132, 133, 144, 147,

156, 181, 186, 191, 197, 200

T

tailed frog, xiii, xiv, 53, 76, 79, 157, 164, 167, 169,

173

threatened and endangered species

bald eagle, xiv, 75, 77, 156, 162, 163, 167, 173

bull trout, vi, ix, xi, xiii, xiv, 4, 6, 11, 38, 39, 40,

52, 53, 61, 63, 80, 81, 82, 113, 128, 130, 133,

140, 141, 150, 152, 159, 161, 165, 167, 172,

173, 189, 200, 201
Index

255

chinook salmon, vi, vii, ix, xi, xiii, xiv, 5, 6, 10,

14, 15, 20, 37, 38, 39, 40, 61, 63, 70, 77, 80, 81,

86, 89, 95, 99, 128, 130, 132, 140, 150, 152,

154, 159, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,

170, 171, 172, 173, 180, 182, 189, 200, 201

marbled murrelet, xiii, xiv, 11, 40, 75, 78, 162,

166, 167, 168, 171, 173

northern spotted owl, xiii, xiv, 78, 162, 168, 173,

180

traditional cultural properties, xv, 84

tribal fish hatchery, v, vi, vii, xii, 5, 14, 15, 16, 19,

22, 37, 41, 48, 57, 58, 60, 61, 64, 67, 69, 75, 103,

106, 109, 110, 112, 127, 131, 135, 139, 141, 144,

149, 151, 157, 158, 160, 165, 168, 171, 180, 186,

190

trumpeter swans, vi, xii, 7, 43, 44, 51, 76, 91, 154,

159

turbidity, v, vii, viii, ix, xii, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 44, 46, 50, 51, 52,

53, 54, 58, 61, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111,

112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 123, 129, 130, 131,

132, 133, 134, 148, 157, 160, 169, 170, 171, 172,

173

W

wastewater, v, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, 2, 6, 11, 12, 34, 35,

47, 50, 67, 69, 74, 86, 89, 111, 112, 117, 118, 119,

120, 121, 123, 131, 136, 140, 142, 150, 151, 157,

158, 160, 168, 180, 186, 194, 197

treatment, i, 6, 34, 35, 47, 48, 118, 120

wastewater disposal, viii, 119

water quality, iv, v, vii, viii, xiv, xvi, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12,

14, 19, 20, 30, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 55,

58, 59, 73, 78, 89, 91, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108,

111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 123, 125,

131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 169, 171, 172, 173, 182,

186, 191, 194, 200

water supply, iv, v, viii, xvi, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 15, 21,

30, 44, 48, 49, 51, 52, 57, 61, 73, 76, 78, 91, 100,

108, 115, 117, 120, 125, 156, 157, 163, 178, 186,

194

WDFW fish-rearing channel (chinook salmon), iv,

xiv, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 28, 38, 39, 50, 54, 60,

70, 75, 95, 99, 100, 110, 112, 123, 131, 136, 144,

156, 164, 165, 171, 177, 178

wells, v, vi, viii, 5, 9, 14, 15, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34,

41, 44, 45, 48, 50, 58, 60, 61, 92, 94, 95, 96, 99,

101, 103, 107, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 136, 197

western toad, xiii, xiv, 79, 154, 162, 167, 173

wetlands, x, xi, xiv, 31, 42, 52, 53, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75,

76, 92, 98, 104, 124, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 154,

156, 157, 164, 167, 169, 173

wildlife, iii, vi, xii, xiii, 1, 8, 9, 10, 48, 52, 53, 67, 68,

70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 95, 96, 104, 125, 145,

147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160,

161, 163, 164, 168, 180
Index

256
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our

nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering wise use of our land and water

resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks

and historic places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our

people. The department also promotes the goals of the Take Pride in America campaign by encouraging

stewardship and citizen responsibility for the public lands and promoting citizen participation in their care. The

department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live

in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-377 (November 2004)
United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service