Elwha River Restoration Survey

ELWHA RIVER RESTORATION

What do YOU think
should be done?
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other suggestions for reducing
this burden to Tony Penn, NOAA NOS, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver, Spring, MD 20910.
The identity of individuals will be protected throughout the data acquisition and analysis process through the use of
administrative controls on access to individual identification information, and individual responses will not be disclosed to
the public. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be
subjected to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

Elwha River Restoration Survey
Background and Purpose
Steps that would improve the environment of the Elwha River in western Washington are being considered.
• Information will be provided so that you can answer the questions, even if you are not familiar with the
area.
• Public officials will use the results of this survey and other information to decide what to do.
Choices to be made soon will determine what is done and may cost you money. Please take a few minutes to
fill out this survey.

The Elwha River
The maps on the insert show the Elwha River and the streams flowing into it.
• The Elwha River is more than 70 miles long.
• The river flows mainly from south to north before it empties into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which connects
the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound.
• The maps show where the Elwha Dam and the Glines Canyon Dam were built.
• The map also shows other rivers that, like the Elwha River, have salmon.
• The largest city near the river is Port Angeles, WA, six miles away, with a population of about 20,000.

Before the river reaches
the Elwha Dam site,
it runs through steep,
narrow valleys and
canyons. This picture
shows a scene from this
part of the river. Most
of the areas that run
through these valleys are
in Olympic National Park,
in remote areas with
limited or no access by
road.

This picture shows the river as it empties into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It also shows where a number of
people live, including many members of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.

The dams on the Elwha River are being torn down.
• The Elwha Dam was built in 1910. It is outside Olympic
National Park, and was recently taken down.
• The Glines Canyon Dam, which is inside the national park,
was built before the area was set aside as a national park.
The dam was built in 1920 and will be torn down by 2013.
• The dams were taken down because they were old and
obsolete. It is less expensive to take them down than to
bring them up to modern standards.

YES
1. Before today, had you
heard of the Elwha River?
2. Have you ever visited the
Elwha River?
3. Have you ever visited
Olympic National Park?
4. Before today, had you
heard or read about
removal of the dams on
the Elwha River?

NO

Salmon and the Elwha River Ecosystem
The Elwha River supports many kinds of plants and animals.
• The Elwha River ecosystem includes these plants and animals interacting with their physical surroundings.
• Dense forests typical of the coastal Pacific Northwest grow along the river.
Before the dams were built, salmon were part of the ecosystem throughout the Elwha River.
• Young salmon swam down the Elwha River and into the ocean.
• The salmon that survived to adulthood swam back up the Elwha River to spawn and die, beginning the life
cycle again.
Scientists consider salmon to be a keystone species for the entire Elwha River ecosystem.
• A keystone species plays an important role in holding an ecosystem together. If a keystone species is
removed, the entire ecosystem changes.
People also depended on the salmon.
• Visitors and people living along the river, including members of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, fished for
Elwha River salmon.
The Elwha River salmon contributed to the much larger ocean ecosystem.
• Orcas, sea lions, and other sea animals ate salmon from the many rivers in the Northwest, including the
Elwha River.

This picture shows salmon as a keystone species at the center of the Elwha River ecosystem before
the dams were built.

Forests and the Elwha River Ecosystem
Before the dams were built, forests grew along the entire length of the Elwha River.
• These areas contained a larger variety of trees and other plants than forests farther away from the river.
• These forests were home to a rich variety of wildlife, including both large animals, such as elk and deer, and
small animals, such as raccoons, mink, mice, chipmunks, squirrels, frogs, turtles, and salamanders.
• Many birds also used these forests, including songbirds, wood ducks, ospreys, woodpeckers, and others.
The dams had two effects on the Elwha River ecosystem that are being considered in our study:
• They prevented salmon from moving upstream to spawn, resulting in the loss of a keystone species from
most of the river.
• Lakes behind the dams covered forests, destroying some wildlife habitat.

This picture shows forests as an important part of the Elwha River ecosystem before the dams were built.

Please check one box
I understood it very well.
5. How well do you feel you understood what you
just read about the Elwha River ecosystem?

I have gained some understanding, but some
parts were hard to understand.
I didn’t understand it at all.

6. Do you have any questions about the Elwha River ecosystem? If so, please write them here.

Elwha River Salmon Restoration
Because the dams blocked the river, salmon could no longer swim upstream to spawn, and their numbers
have declined by more than 90%.
• The areas that salmon could not reach are in parts of the river shown in light blue on the maps.
• A small number of salmon still use the part of the river downstream of the Elwha Dam site, which is shown
in dark blue on both maps.
• Some native salmon still spawn there, but many others are hatchery fish.
• Native salmon are those that are born in the Elwha River, go out to the ocean for part of their lives, and
return to the Elwha River to spawn.
When the dams were built, the Elwha River ecosystem upstream of the dams no longer had its keystone
species.
• As a result, the number of bears, eagles, otters, mink, raccoons, and other animals and birds may have
declined because they did not have salmon to eat.
• The forest and other plants along the river no longer had the fertilizer from dead salmon.
The ocean ecosystem was also affected.
• Orcas, sea lions, and other sea animals had fewer salmon to eat.
Scientists at universities and research centers have studied Elwha River salmon for many years.
• They are drawing on 100 years of research in the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska, as well as
their experience with methods for increasing the number of fish returning to various rivers.
• They have studied how many salmon could be restored in the Elwha River and how long it would take.
These scientists estimate that before the dams were built, about 300,000 salmon returned to the Elwha
River each year, on average. This is considered the historical level of salmon.
• Depending on what is done after the dams are removed, these scientists predict that the number of salmon
returning to the Elwha River each year could reach up to 60% of historical levels (180,000 salmon return
each year).
• They predict that after dam removal, the number of salmon returning to the Elwha River would not reach
historical levels for two reasons:
○

First, people have made changes to the salmon habitat, only some of which can be returned to its
previous condition.

○

Second, once they are in the ocean, Elwha River salmon would mix with fish from other rivers and be
caught by recreational and commercial fishermen.

Steps could be taken to increase the number of salmon more quickly and allow more to return each year.
• Salmon habitat could be improved downstream of the Elwha Dam site.
○

More spawning areas in this part of the river would lead to a rapid expansion in the number of salmon
there.

○

Some of these salmon would stray upstream of the Elwha Dam site, helping to establish more groups
throughout the river.

• Elwha River salmon could be raised in a new salmon nursery and released upstream to establish salmon
populations upstream.
○

The salmon nursery would be built and operated using the latest research on and experience in ways to
successfully raise native salmon for release into the wild.

○

Such salmon nurseries have been successful in British Columbia and Alaska.

○

Eggs from the native Elwha River females would be collected, fertilized by native males, and placed in the
nursery to grow into young fish.

○

The young fish would be put into the Elwha River upstream of the dam sites.

○

These areas are in nearly pristine condition, making them ideal places for young salmon to live and grow.

Three alternatives are being considered that involve different levels of salmon restoration. These three
alternatives reflect the current knowledge of Elwha River scientists.

Salmon Alternative 1
No further actions

Salmon Alternative 2
Limited actions

Salmon Alternative 3
Extensive actions

Elwha River scientists predict that
by doing nothing more than dam
removal, the number of salmon
would level off at about 40% of
historical levels (120,000 salmon
return each year) in about
100 years.

Elwha River scientists predict that
with limited salmon restoration,
the number of salmon would level
off at about 50% of historical levels
(150,000 salmon return each year)
in about 50 years.

Elwha River scientists predict that
with extensive salmon restoration,
the number of salmon would level
off at about 60% of historical
levels (180,000 salmon return
each year) in about 25 years.

• No salmon habitat would be
improved.

• Only some salmon habitat would • As much salmon habitat as
be improved.
possible would be improved.

• Because there would be no
habitat improvements, the
number of salmon returning
each year would level off
at a lower level than with
Alternatives 2 and 3.

• These limited habitat
improvements would allow the
number of salmon returning
each year to level off at a higher
level than with Alternative 1.

• These extensive habitat
improvements would allow the
number of salmon returning
each year to level off at a higher
level than with
Alternatives 1 and 2.

• No Elwha River salmon would be • No Elwha River salmon would be • Extensive numbers of native
released upstream.
Elwha River salmon would be
released upstream.
released upstream.
• The increase in the number
• The increase in the number
of salmon would happen less
• Releasing these salmon would
of salmon would happen less
quickly than with Alternative 3.
increase the number of salmon
quickly than with Alternative 3.
returning each year more
quickly than with
Alternatives 1 and 2.

Timelines for Salmon Restoration

Salmon restoration as a percentage of historical levels

60%

180,000

180,000

180,000

150,000

150,000

40%

120,000

75,000
20%

60,000
Extensive actions
Limited actions
No further actions

9,000
0%

25

50

100

Years after dam removal

Table 1. Salmon restoration alternatives
Time since dam
removal

Salmon Alternative 1
No further actions

Salmon Alternative 2
Limited actions

Salmon Alternative 3
Extensive actions

25 years after dam
removal

3% of historical levels
(9,000 salmon return each
year)

25% of historical levels
(75,000 salmon return each
year)

60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)

50 years after dam
removal

20% of historical levels
(60,000 salmon return each
year)

50% of historical levels
(150,000 salmon return
each year)

60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)

100 years after dam
removal

40% of historical levels
(120,000 salmon return
each year)

50% of historical levels
(150,000 salmon return
each year)

60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)

Table 1 shows the percentages of historical levels of returning salmon that are possible. These percentages
are taken from the timelines in the graph above.

Please check one box
I understood the alternatives very well.
7. How well do you feel you understood what
you just read about salmon restoration
alternatives?

I have gained some understanding of the
alternatives, but some parts were hard to
understand.
I didn’t understand the alternatives at all.

8. Do you have any questions about salmon restoration in the Elwha River? If so, please write them here.

Forests and Wildlife Recovery at the Old Lake Sites
When the dams were completed, a total of about 5 miles of forests along the Elwha River were covered with
water to make the two lakes behind the dams.
• This would be about 7% of the total length of the Elwha River, which is about 70 miles.
• A total of 800 acres of forests were covered. This is equal to about 800 football fields.
This picture shows the lake site after the Elwha Dam was removed last spring.
• The stumps are from trees cut down before the lake began to fill.
• The Glines Canyon Dam’s lake bottom would look like this after that dam is removed.

The old lake site after removal of the Elwha Dam.

Elwha River scientists are studying how the forests and wildlife might recover once both dams are removed.
• These scientists can draw on many years of research on how forests grow after lakes are drained.
• It would take some time, but scientists predict that 100% recovery of the forests and wildlife is possible.
○

100% recovery means that all the forests and wildlife will return to what they were like before the dams
were built.

○

Some birds and other wildlife do best living in mature forests with big trees; 100% recovery will not be
reached until the young trees are large enough to support them.

Progress toward recovery will be described as percentages of full recovery, as illustrated in this diagram.

This picture shows the progress of forests and wildlife recovery.

Once the dams are removed, forests and wildlife would eventually recover at the old lake sites.
• If nothing else is done, progress would be slow for many decades after the lakes are drained.
○

Because of erosion, it would take several years before the soil could stabilize enough to support plants.

○ Weeds that grow faster than native plants and trees would become established.
○ Because of erosion and weeds, native grasses, trees, and shrubs would not start growing at the old lake
sites for about 50 years.
• It would take about 200 years for the forest to grow enough to support the birds and other animals that
need big trees.
Steps can be taken to restore the forests and wildlife at the old lake sites more quickly.
Native grasses, shrubs, and trees could be planted.
• Planting native grasses and shrubs, such as willows and alders, would reduce erosion and prevent weeds
from taking over.
• Planting native trees, such as Douglas firs and cottonwoods, would give them a much earlier start than they
would get with natural seeding.
• Planting native grasses, shrubs, and trees would eventually start new plants in neighboring areas without
the help of people.
Three alternatives are being considered that involve different levels of forests and wildlife recovery at the
old lake sites.

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 1
No further actions

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 2
Limited actions

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 3
Extensive actions

Elwha River scientists predict that
if no further actions are taken
after the dams are removed,
100% recovery of forests and
wildlife would be achieved in
about 200 years.

Elwha River scientists predict
that if native grasses, shrubs,
and trees are planted in some
limited areas, 100% recovery of
the forests and wildlife would be
achieved in about 125 years.

Elwha River scientists predict
that if native grasses, shrubs,
and trees are planted in more
extensive areas, 100% recovery
of the forests and wildlife would
be achieved in about 90 years.

• No native grasses, shrubs, or
trees would be planted.

• Native grasses, shrubs, and
tress would be planted in
some areas.

• Native grasses, shrubs, and
tress would be planted in as
many areas as possible.

• Because there would not be
any actions to restore the old
lake sites, it would take more
time for the forests and wildlife
to achieve 100% recovery than
with Alternatives 2 and 3.

• Planting in limited areas
would allow the forests and
wildlife to achieve 100%
recovery in less time than with
Alternative 1.

• Planting in extensive areas
would allow the forests and
wildlife to achieve 100%
recovery in less time than with
Alternatives 1 and 2.

Timelines for Forests and Wildlife Recovery
100%

100%
Forests and wildlife recovery as a percentage of historical levels

100%

100%

100%

90%

80%
75%

60%

40%
30%

Extensive actions

20%

18%

Limited actions

18%

No further actions

8%

0%

0.5%

1%

25

50

100

200

Years after dam removal

Table 2. Forests and wildlife restoration alternatives
Time since dam
removal

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 1
No further actions

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 2
Limited actions

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 3
Extensive actions

25 years after dam
removal

0.5% recovered

8% recovered

18% recovered

50 years after dam
removal

1% recovered

30% recovered

75% recovered

100 years after dam
removal

18% recovered

90% recovered

100% recovered

200 years after dam
removal

100% recovered

100% recovered

100% recovered

Table 2 shows the percentages of forests and wildlife that would be recovered in 25, 50, 100, and
200 years after dam removal, depending on which alternative is adopted. The percentages are taken
from the timelines in the graph above.

Please check one box
I understood the alternatives very well.
9. How well do you feel you understood what you
just read about forests and wildlife restoration
alternatives?

I have gained some understanding of the
alternatives, but some parts were hard to
understand.
I didn’t understand the alternatives at all.

10. Do you have any questions about forests and wildlife recovery at the old lake sites? If so, please write
them here.

What Are Your Opinions on the Alternatives?
Benefits and Negative Impacts
Restoring the Elwha River ecosystem would benefit people.
• Some people may like knowing that natural ecosystems are being restored, even if they do not personally
visit them.
• Sport and commercial fishermen would benefit from more salmon in the river and ocean.
• People visiting the river would eventually see tens of thousands of salmon returning to the river to spawn.
• In the future, visitors to the area and local residents would be able to enjoy forests, birds, and other wildlife
at the old lake sites.
• The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe supports restoration efforts because a restored ecosystem is important to
them in many ways.
○ A restored Elwha River ecosystem has much cultural and religious significance for them.
○ In the future, because there would be many more salmon in the river, members of the Lower Elwha

Klallam Tribe would be able to catch many more of them.

The more that is done after the dams are removed, the sooner these benefits will happen.
Restoring the Elwha River ecosystem would also have some negative impacts, however, which include the
following:
• As the number of young salmon using the river increases, they would compete with local trout for food and
habitat.
○ As the number of salmon increases, there will be fewer local trout.

• Improving salmon habitat and planting native grasses, shrubs, and trees may disturb local wildlife until the
activities are completed in about five years.
• Doing more after the dams are removed would involve costs.
How costs would be paid for is the topic of the next section.

How Would Restoration Be Paid For?
Money for removing the dams was collected years ago. At that time, no additional money was collected for
additional actions to restore salmon, forests, and wildlife.
• If no further action is taken after the dams are removed, there will be no additional cost to the public.
If additional restoration actions are taken, the costs would be shared across various groups.
• Sport fishermen, commercial fishermen, and national park visitors would pay a share of the costs.
○ The funds would come from fees already collected for entrance to national parks and for fishing licenses;

no new fees would be collected.

○ Some of the fees that are currently being collected would be diverted to pay for Elwha River ecosystem

restoration, rather than on other projects.

• The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe would also pay a share of the costs.
• The rest of the costs would be paid for by the general public in Washington and Oregon.
The general public’s share of the costs would be collected by adding surcharges to 2013 electricity bills.
• The surcharge on your electricity bill would last for only one year: 2013. By law, no surcharges would be
added in 2014 or thereafter.
• All the money would go into the Elwha River Restoration Trust Fund.
• A nonprofit environmental organization would be formed to manage the trust fund.
• By law, this trust fund could be spent only on Elwha River ecosystem restoration activities.
• All the money would be collected in 2013, and then paid out as needed.
• All the money would be collected in the first year to ensure that there is enough to complete the work.

What Do You Think Should Be Done After Dam Removal?
In a moment, you will be asked about which alternatives you think are the best. Here are some things to
consider:
• Public officials will take the results of this survey into account when they choose what to do.
• The costs, if any, would be added to your 2013 electricity bill.
• By law, no money collected for Elwha River ecosystem restoration could be spent on other things.
• You might decide that no further actions should be taken after the dams are removed, or you might choose
other alternatives.
• The choice is yours. Our job is to learn what you think and report the results to the public officials who will
decide.

For easy reference, the tables below summarize the alternatives as they were presented to you earlier.

Table 3. Salmon restoration alternatives
Time since dam
removal

Salmon Alternative 1
No further actions

Salmon Alternative 2
Limited actions

Salmon Alternative 3
Extensive actions

25 years after dam
removal

3% of historical levels
(9,000 salmon return
each year)

25% of historical levels
(75,000 salmon return
each year)

60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)

50 years after dam
removal

20% of historical levels
(60,000 salmon return
each year)

50% of historical levels
(150,000 salmon return
each year)

60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)

100 years after dam
removal

40% of historical levels
(120,000 salmon return
each year)

50% of historical levels
(150,000 salmon return
each year)

60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)

Table 4. Forests and wildlife recovery alternatives
Time since dam
removal

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 1
No further actions

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 2
Limited actions

Forests and Wildlife
Alternative 3
Extensive actions

25 years after dam
removal

0.5% recovered

8% recovered

18% recovered

50 years after dam
removal

1% recovered

30% recovered

75% recovered

100 years after dam
removal

18% recovered

90% recovered

100% recovered

200 years after dam
removal

100% recovered

100% recovered

100% recovered

Which alternatives do you think should be implemented and what will it cost?
Please complete the four steps in the table below.
• First, review all of the alternatives and their costs.
• Second, check the box of the salmon alternative you would like to see implemented.
• Third, check the box of the forests and wildlife alternative you would like to see implemented.
• Fourth, add the one-year costs from the alternatives you circled and fill in the sum your household would
pay on the right side of the table.
Alternative 1
No further actions

Alternative 2
Limited actions

Alternative 3
Extensive actions

3% of historical levels
(9,000 salmon return
each year)
20% of historical levels
(60,000 salmon return
each year)
40% of historical levels
(120,000 salmon return
each year)
$0 total
($0 per month)

25% of historical levels
(75,000 salmon return
each year)
50% of historical levels
(150,000 salmon return
each year)
50% of historical levels
(150,000 salmon return
each year)
$48 total
($4 per month)

60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)
60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)
60% of historical levels
(180,000 salmon return
each year)
$84 total
($7 per month)

Salmon restoration
25 years after dam
removal
50 years after dam
removal
100 years after dam
removal
Surcharge on your
electric bill in 2013

Your total
one-year cost
for salmon
restoration

Please check the alternative that you personally think is the best of the three

$

Alternative 1
No further actions

Alternative 2
Limited actions

Alternative 3
Extensive actions

0.5% recovered

8% recovered

18% recovered

1% recovered

30% recovered

75% restored

18% recovered

90% recovered

100% recovered

100% recovered

100% recovered

100% recovered

$0 total
($0 per month)

$36 total
($3 per month)

$60 total
($5 per month)

Forests and wildlife restoration
25 years
after dam removal
50 years
after dam removal
100 years
after dam removal
200 years
after dam removal
Surcharge on your
electric bill in 2013

Your total
one-year cost
for forests
and wildlife
restoration

Please check the alternative that you personally think is the best of the three

$
Your total one-year cost
(salmon cost plus
forests and wildlife cost)

$

11. You just chose a combination of alternatives for salmon and forest restoration. In the space
provided below, please tell us your reasons for choosing that combination.

12. When you chose which combination of restoration actions you would like to see implemented,
did you think that public officials would use the results of this survey when they decide what to
do? Please check one box.
 I thought that public officials would definitely use the results of this survey.
 I thought that public officials would probably use the results of this survey.
 I thought that public officials would probably not use the results of this survey.
 I thought that public officials would definitely not use the results of this survey.

13. When you chose which combination of restoration actions you would like to see implemented,
how certain were you that you would actually have to help pay for restoration as part of your
2013 electricity bills? Please check one box.
 I thought I would definitely have to help pay for restoration.
 I thought I would probably have to help pay for restoration.
 I thought I would probably not have to help pay for restoration.
 I thought I would definitely not have to help pay for restoration.