The Elwha Discussion
In 1994, the Elwha issue was important to a lot of folks in Clallam County. The staff of The Peninsula Daily News came up with 14 questions about the issue, which they submitted to the Olympic National Park - and, the same questions to Rescue Elwha Area Lakes , a local environmental group that was opposing ONP's drive to destroy the dams. Then on September 4, 1994 the newspaper published those 14 questions along with the answers of both parties.Since, 14 years have now gone by with the dams still in place and many new folks have moved in who do not know the issues involved, and some of them keep asking, NOBB will reproduce those 14 questions and the aswers as published in the PDN:
1- What is the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Act?
ONP: It is a negotiated settlement among the parties involved in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process for the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams. The parties include: The US Departments of Interior and Commerce, James River Paper, Diashowa America Mill, The Lower Elwha S'Klallam tribe, and four evironmental groups. The settlement also addresses the needs of Port Angeles, Clallam County, Rayonier Mill, and Dry Creek Water Assn.The licensing process began in 1968 when Crown Zellerback Corp. filed an application for licensing Elwha dam. It filed a relicense application for Glines Canyon dam in 1973. Congress recognized that the licensing process had become contentious and costly and that the existing lawsuit (i.e. a federal court case filed by the Park over FERC's authority to license the Glines Canyon Project within Olympic National Park) and future lawsuits would likely delay resolution of the issue for another decade or more. As a result, in 1992, Congress legislated a solution that is supported by the parties above as well as the state of Washington.
REAL: The act calls for Interior to do a study and then decide if the dams must be removed for "full restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries." It fails to define the word "Restoration" and fails to provide any criteria for the Secretary (of interior) to use in making his decision. It also fails to fund the project. If Congress does not fund it within four years (by November 1996), it dies.
Note: The funding in four years provision was later dropped. The Secretary at that time was Bruce Babbitt who had repeatedly expressed his opposition to dams and his desire to "Push the plunger to blow up a major dam".
PDN Question #2- Can the public trust the Park's study on dam removal when the Park said going in it wanted the dams out?
ONP: The Elwha Report is not "The Park's study". It was developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, bureaus of Reclamation and Indian affairs, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and the National Park Servcie, in addition to the Northwest Power Panning Council, and FERC's draft Environmental Impact Statement incorporating public comments. The report is largely based on information available during FERC's development of the EIS. The report is also consistent with conclusions reached in a March 27, 1991, report by the General Accounting Office. Extensive agency and public review of both FERC's EIS and the Elwha Report did not reeal any significant errors or omissions.
REAL: A conclusion should be the result of a study. When you start with the conclusion, you have not a study but a justification. However, the Elwha Report contains quite a lot of data that came from the 1991 FERC report, which in turn obtained most of it's data from consultant studies paid for my James River Corp. in it's relicense effort. Much of that data if viewed objectively, would lead to a different conclusion.
Question #3 : Why won’t fish ladders or screens work?
Park: A number of agencies conducted fish passage studies on the Elwha river during the FERC licensing process. They evaluated fish ladder, lifts, trap-and-haul, conventional (traveling, rotating drum, etc.) and experimental (Eicher), juvenile fish screens. They concluded that full restoration of the native anadromous fisheries cannot occur if fish passage facilities are installed. Even the best facilities, upstream passage via a ladder at Elwha Dam and a trap-and-haul facility at Glines Canyon dam, would result in losses of adult salmon. However, most passage losses would be associated with juvenile fish moving downstream. Juvenile fish screens can approach 100 percent survival rates for the fish that pass them. However, many fish are lost in reservoirs before they reach the screens. Fish passage facilities will not solve problems associated with the trapping of sediments, nutrients and woody debris in the reservoirs. They also do not address the increase in water temperatrures caused by the storage of heat in the reservoirs. Increased temperatures intensify fish diseases. In 1992, 2/3rds of the returning Elwha River chinook salmon succumbed to disease prior to spawning.Ed Note: This statement seems to reflect the view that no fish are lost in a river. In the NPS's illusary view of the world, kingfishers, herons, eagles, ospreys and other fish eaters do not work in a flowing river - only in slack water. In the real world they do. One can easily watch them.
REAL: Fish ladders and screens do work. A 1990 evaluation of Eicher screen at Elwha dam proved they could be effective in protecting downstream-moving smolt. Fish ladders and trap-and-haul operations are and have been successfully used in many places in the U.S. and Canada for many years. We find no evidence in the Elwha report that fish ladders and screens were ever considered.
Ed Note: Over 100,000 salmon travel 600 miles up the Columbia, traversing nine fish ladders to get above the Wells dam.
Question #4 What will happen to the ecosystems that are on the Elwha River now?
Park: The dams represent 80 years of elimination and degradation of the ecosystems natural processes and populations that were historically present in the Elwha River basin. The anadromous fish runs continue to decline, wildlife continue to be deprived of important food sources and habitat and the habitat below the dams and into saltwater continues to degrade.
Removal would bring benefits to some species and negative impacts to others.
Certain species that benefit from reservoir habitats, such as wintering trumpeter swans, could be adversely affected. Species that are dependent on the river and riparian habitats that would be restored, including harlequin ducks and others, would benefit. Full restoration of anadromous fish to the river would also increase the ecosystem’s productivity. Because of the increase availability of fish as a food source, bald eagles, among others would benefit. Balancing the trade-offs between wildlife species, it should be recognized that the acreage of the reservoirs such as Lake Mills and Lake Aldlwell has increased throughout the nation. In contrast, the populations of many species associated with river habitats continue to decline.
Concerning trumpeter swans, the Trumpeter Swan Society, an international group dedicated to protecting the says: “We do not oppose the removal of the two Elwha River dams provided that the issues of the swans are adequately addressed . .. We are confident that we can work with the federal agencies in developing a plan that provides for proper protection and mitigation for trumpeter swans . . . “ They also mention the swans have not even been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
As for Boulder Creek campground, it could be maintained as a camping-observation point to view the restoration process. Once the river stabilizes, the possibility of new camping areas could be explored. Recreational activities would remain on the river and fishing would be enhanced. Slack water would be available elsewhere in the county.
REAL: The current ecosystem will be obliterated. The campground will still be there but it won’t have good access, but nobody will have much reason to go there anyway. Eagles and osprey will find other homes somewhere in the vicinity. The Trumpeter swans, boats, fishing, swimming will be history. Trumpeters are far better candidate for threatened or endangered listing because there are far fewer of them and their habitat requirements are much more specific.
Concerning spotted owls that are in the area now, blasting and four years of heavy equipment use would certainly be more disruptive than logging. Hopefully, environmental laws can be invoked to force a judicial decision: Either logging rules about the owl are too stringent or the Elwha project cannot take place.
Question #5: How is the restoration of Elwha River Salmon guaranteed?
Park: When dealing with biological systems, there are few guarantees. Nevertheless, the Elwha River offers the best opportunity for fish restoration on the Peninsula because nearly all of it lies within Olympic National Park and is primarily pristine. If you provide high quality habitat and adequately control harvest, fish will return. Other rivers on the Peninsula without dams do not have the same quality of habitat as the Elwha because of water withdrawals, logging, urbanization and other impacts.
REAL: There is no guarantee. There isn’t even a reasonable chance. Focusing on other rivers would defeat the Park Service’s goal of removing the Glines Canyon Dam. The Park Service has been the primary force preventing salmon from spawning in the upper river for 18 years, through it’s blocking of the relicensing process which would require fish passages to be built. Three hundred million dollars could be spent much more wisely and in a manner that would do much more good for salmon - - or not spending it would help our nation’s economic situation.
Question #6: Are restoration efforts pointless because Indians are allowed to net the mouth of theriver anyway?
Park: No. In coordination with the state, tribes including the Elwha develop annual harvest management plans for each stock. The Elwha Tribe has been harvesting only hatchery coho salmon and steelhead since 1976 when their hatchery was completed. Recently, as part of management activities to estimate run size, the tribe has harvested chinook in the river at a rate of about 150 to 400 fish per year.
REAL: So long as any one group, human or animal, is allowed to continue taking salmon without any control, all attempts at improving salmon spawning are fruitless in terms of getting the runs back to anything like what they once were.
Ed Note: This brings up the two 800 lb gorillas of the salmon issue, that the NPS has carefully ignored throughout - Human takers and animal takers - Most of the salmon smolt that go out to sea are nver seen again because of the huge army of hi-tech equipped trawlers prowling the ocean before the fish get back into the river where the Indians decide how many fish they will take - the state does not. The other gorilla is the huge army of government protected sea mamals and birds that eat fish. So called "Full restoration" (however you define it) cannot take place so long as these two sets of takers are allowed to pretty well do their thing.
Question #7 How will Daishowa survive without power?
Park: Replacement power for Daishowa will be provided by the Bonneville Power Administration through Port Angeles City Light, at the same rate cahrged all other industrial users. Daishowa has stated it supports the settlement partly because it provides a reliable source of power for the future. Provisions for future industrial growth in Port Angeles are included in BPA’s plans for its regional grid.
REAL: While the Elwha act does require BPA to provide power to Daishowa, it does not fix the rate. Removing the dams would cause an increase in Daishowa’s cost of making paper in Port Angeles.
Using BPA’s future rate projections, the value of power produced by the dams, without updating of equipment, would amount to $848 million over the next 50 years. Updating the ancient equipment would push that figure to well over $ 1 Billion. This would be a loss to this community and it by far exceeds all theother financial costs combined.
Editors Note: While I am not privy to Daishowas P&L statement, I have from what I consider a good, inside source that the owners netted $ nine million off the dams power during the last year they owned the dams. That money is now going to the NPS. That must be a substantial loss to the company and will hurry the day that they find their PA mill unprofitable and close it. . . . . . JMC
Question #8: Are effects of dam removal on wells near the Elwha being given enough attention?
Park: Yes. Hydrologists with the bureau of reclamation and US Geological survey have stated that impacts to ground water resulting from dam removal would be minimal and localized - only those wells along the reservoirs are apt to be affected, if any are at all. We are also investigating the option of providing a contingency fund to ease any unforseen impacts to private wells.REAL: According to US Bureau of Reclamation representative, Bob Hamilton, there is little that present technology can tell us about how much water is going into acquifers and where they go. A recent newspaper article quotes Kayti Didricksen of the Bureau of Reclamation as saying they do not feel it is a serious problem. It won’t be to the government because if someone says his well went dry because the lakes were drained, the government’s response will be, “prove it”. Since such proof is impossible, the government will be off the hook.
Ed Note: The gov't study on this only addressed wells close to the lower dam. However, geological maps indicate that a fault line runs right across Lake Mills. That lake is 145 feed deep (at least), which means a lot of pressure at the bottom is probably inserting water into the fault. Where it goes from there is anybody's guess. It could be affecting wells many miles away.
Question #9 Why is dam removal the only way to restore the Elwha?
Park: With construction of the Elwha Dam between 1910 and 1913, the river's salmon suffered immediate and profound impacts. Elwha Dam cut off access to 70 miles (over 93% percent of the total) of mainstream and tributary salmon habitat. The sockeye salmon run was probably immediately eliminated because they were prevented access to Lake Sutherland. Spring chinook may have spawned in the lower river for a time. However, the lower river does not provide the habitat and environmental conditions necessary for spring chinook, so they are likely extinct as well.Ed Note: The 70 miles is fictional because not far above the upper dam, the river becmes too steep even for a salmon (they can jump but they can't fly) Most of the spawing has always been in the lower river and the record of exellent salmon runs for 50 years after completion of the Elwha dam proves that.
In 1975, the remaining runs had declined so precpitously that the Washington Department of fisheries negotiated a settlement with the dam owner to construct a fish rearing channel aimed at rebuilding the Elwha chinook salmon stock. Similarly, the Elwha Tribe secured funding to raise coho salmon and steelhead. The lack of access to upriver habitat below Elwha Dam and presence of hatchery fish has severely diminished wild salmon and steelhead in the river.
Removal of the dams would allow access to habitat currently blocked or inundated, allow lower river habitat to recover, and allow the phasing out of hatchery production in the river.
REAL: If “Full restoration” is interpreted as making everything like it was when the first caucasian arrived on the Peninsula, then obviously the dam have to go, as must all the dikes, levees, barrier dams and bridges. The law assumes that “full restoration” can take place with removal of the dams. This is a false assumption, but can only be proved so after the fact. The only argument we have heard for the long time delay between dam building and salmon loss is that it took years for gravel starvation to ruin lower rive spawning. That theory doesn’t explain a return rate of less than 1% for hatchery smolt that are not affected by the river.
Editor Note: Dr. Ernie Brannon, head of fishery at the University of Idaho, world known salmon consultant, grad and former prof of the UW school of fisheries where he was Brian Winter's faculty advisor, Port Angeles native intimately familier with the Elwha, says the notion of gravel starvation to the point of interfering with spawning in the lower river is a fiction.
Question #10: Is it worth up to $300 million considering so many other problems in the country?
Park: We believe the cost will be closer to $145 million to $200 million. Nevertheless, that is a matter for each individual to decide. However, we can say that we consider the one-time effort of dam removal in the Elwha to be a cost-effective solution to fish restoration, especailly considering the fishery restoration costs being incurred in other Northwest rivers. Also, if the settlement falls apart because dam removal is not funded, we will be back in court. That is something all parties to the settlement want to avoid.
REAL: There is no possibility that the few extra salmon that could be produced in the upper river by dam removal as opposed to installation of fish passages could ever equal even the interest on $300 million, let alone pay back the principal or compensate for lost power, lost wildlife and lost beauty and recreational opportunities.
Ed Note: The original estimate of $300 million included the cost of cleanup. The NPS later decided not to do cleanup and thereby reduce the cost. Of course, inflation has forced them to admit to $300 million recently and some cleanup will have to be done - - but they plan to do it under another appropriation. HALF a BILLION seems like a more reasonable estimate. . . . JMC
Question #11: Will flooding be a problem if the dams are removed?
PARK: Neither dam is operated for flood control purposes. However, restoration of natural sediment to the lower river would allow sediment to accumulate in areas that have eroded since the dams were built. This could cause some localized increases in flood potential.REAL: On page 93 of the Elwha Report: Aluvial materials moving down the river channel after dam removal will build up the channel bottom. As the channel cross section changes, the river meander can change. These changes combined with the above-noted changes in flood flows could endanger the Lower Elwha levee and effect the productivity of the city of Port Angeles Raney well and the collection pipe for the tribal hachery
Ed Note : The question is: Believe the scientific assessment or the bureaucratic "assessment"?
Question #12: What will be the economic benefit to the Peninsula with dam removal both short and long-term?
Park: An economic study indicates that the short-term (10 years) would result in $48.6 million in gross income to Clallam County workers, $90.4 million including the adjacent region. Project-related purchases and equipment rentals would generate an estimated $21.1 million in revenue for Clallam County businesses. Ong-term direct and indirect jogs would be created through the restoration of the fish stocks (commercial and recreational fishing, fishing supplies, support industries) and the ecosystem (tourism)
REAL: Short-term, dam removal would provide a few temporary jobs. The Elwha Report claims that dam removal would attract tourists. They ignore the fact that existing roads would be choked with trucks hauling rock and silt. Clearly, the short-term effect on the salmon harvest would be negative. Long term, various claims have been made about hundreds of jobs in commercial fishing being created by hundreds of thousands of salmon to the Elwha - - but no evidence has been shown that this would happen.
Ed Note: It's hard to visualize why tourists would come to see a mud mess where once there were two beautiful lakes. We are not talking about environmental progress here.
Question # 13 : What options are there other than dam removal?
Park: full restoration does not take place, fishing would only marginally imporve, the Elwha Tribe’s treaty rights would continue to be violated, and the negotiated settlement would dissolve. Failure to fully implement the settlement would result in lengthy and costly litigation.
REAL: Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., has introduced a bill that would provide that Congress would order relicensing of the dams if they fail to fund the Elwha Act. Unless that bill passes, James River could be required to remove the dams at its own expense. Whether its contract with Daishowa would pick up the tab for this, we do not know.
It is becoming increasingly unlikely that Congress will fund this project. REAL has been prodding public officials to come up with a “plan B”. We think Gorton’s bill is it. Having the PUD buy the dams at the bargain price of $29.5 million, the Army Corps of Engineers installing fish passages utilizing the very best known technology - perhaps some experimental - seems like a good, workable scenario that would please everybody except the Park Service. Moving the park boundary on the Elwha River back to where it was originally would take the dam and lake out of the park, and thus solve that problem.
Ed Note: The NPS has never and apparently will never define the phrase: "Full Restoration". Using it, they can justify anything . The implication to the general public is that they mean to put the Elwha Valley back to what they think it was when caucasians first showed up here, including the salmon runs. But, that is, of course totally impossible with the dams in or out. . . . . . JMC
Question #14: Any final Remarks?
Park: Interior secretary Bruce Babbitt has identified restoration of the Elwha River as one of his highest priorities. Commissioner of Reclamation Dan Beard has testified that the bureau has the funds and the means available to accomplish the task. Consequently Interior has initiated development of an EIS to select a prferred alternative for restoration. Public meetings on the EIS will take place this fall.
Ed Note: 14 years later, public hearings have still never taken place
REAL: The dams and their lakes (Inaccurately called reservoirs) are an asset to the whole community. What happens to them vitally effects this community and their destruction is not something that can be reversed. Too many community and state leaders are allowing themselves to be intimidated by the federal government.
Too many private individuals are either ignoring the problem assuming that “The government knows best”, or are falling for fantasies that are being circulated about 100-point salmon returning to the Elwha if the dams are taken out
The salmon problem is a many-sided equation involving spawning, food fish, natural predators and different groups of human takers. No plan that fails to address all sides of the equation will have any lasting effect.
There seems to be a real possibility that Congress may say to Interior, “Here is $50 million, go ahead and start your project, then come back for more when you run out.” Then, after the dams have been partially dismantled, the budget crunch causes them to abandon the whole project. That’s the REAL story.
Ed Note: The two 800 lb gorillas of human takers and animal takers have not been dealt with and the government appears to have no plan to do so. So long as that is the case, the whole project is pre-ordained to failure so far as salmon are concened. By giving themselves 30 years to accomplish their "miracle", the dam busters have assured themselves of retirement with honors before the public learns the truth . . . JMC