DOCSLIB.ORG

Elwha River Watershed, Located on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, As a Component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Elwha River Watershed, Located on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, As a Component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System) National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior Elwha Wild & Scenic River Eligibility Report Final Draft July 2004 Executive Summary Purpose and Background of this Study This draft study report evaluates the eligibility and classification of the Elwha River watershed, located on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System). This assessment makes no recommendation as to whether or not the river should be placed in the National System. It only addresses its eligibility and classification. If a river segment is found to be eligible, policy requires that federal land management agencies do everything possible to ensure that the resource values, which are the basis of the eligibility, are protected. An eligibility study is the first step in a process that could result in a river eventually being designated into the National System. If a river is found eligible, typically the next step is to conduct a suitability study. A suitability study assesses whether or not eligible segments should be included in the National System. It is based on public input and an assessment of the ability of the river segment(s) to be managed to protect the river values. In most cases management alternatives are also developed in conjunction with or after a suitability analysis. If eligibility and suitability studies contain favorable recommendations, designation of the river into the National System can happen through two ways: (1) By Act of Congress and (2) By the Secretary of the Interior through a recommendation from a State’s Governor (Section 2(a)(ii)). The National Park Service would not move forward with recommending segments of the Elwha, either within or outside the Park boundary, for designation without consultation and support from the public and local, State, Federal, and Tribal governments. When a river segment is formally designated through Congress into the National System, a management plan is developed and adopted. In addition an evaluation of potential impacts to the river of any proposed federal water resource project is completed through an analysis under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). The river segment also receives recognition for being part of the National System. Under the WSRA, the river must meet physical requirements to be eligible as a component of the National System. These physical requirements are 1) the river must be free-flowing; and 2) the river must have at least one “outstanding remarkable value” (ORVs), a resource important or unique to the region or nation. If a river is eligible for the National System, there are three possible classifications of the river or river segment–“wild,” “scenic,” and “recreational.” These classifications are based on the degree of human modification of the river and adjacent shorelands. Findings of this Study The entire length of the Elwha River and its tributaries possesses five outstanding remarkable values– wildlife, fish, prehistory, history, and scenery. For a more accurate analysis, the river was divided into two segments. All the Elwha River tributaries were also evaluated. Below are the results of the river’s eligibility and preliminary classification under current and future conditions. Present Conditions. Elwha Segment 1-Elwha River from its mouth to the backwaters of Glines Canyon Dam–This segment is not eligible because of the lack of free-flowing conditions created by Elwha Dam at river mile 4.9 and Glines Canyon Dam at river mile 13.5. A rock diversion structure also exists at river mile 3.3, but this structure alone would not bar this segment from inclusion. i Segment 2-Elwha River from the backwaters of Glines Canyon Dam to the river’s headwaters–This segment is free-flowing and contains five ORVs. Due to its pristine character and limited non-motorized access, this segment would be classified as wild. Tributaries All tributaries, excluding Indian Creek and Little River – Wild. Indian Creek for its entire length – Recreational – due to the presence of adjacent roadways. Little River from its confluence with the Elwha to RM 1.4 – Recreational – due to the presence of adjacent roadways; Remaining length–Wild. Future Conditions. Future plans include removing the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams and restoring the river. In addition, the rock diversion structure at RM 3.3 will be replaced with an engineered riffle. The dam removal is scheduled to start in 2007. When these future plans are complete, the free-flowing character of segment 1 would be restored. The following would be the changes in the river’s eligibility and preliminary classification: Elwha Segment 1-Elwha River from its mouth to the backwaters of the Glines Canyon Dam– Recreational Segment 2-Elwha River from the backwaters of Glines Canyon Dam to the river’s headwaters–No change Tributaries No change Elwha River Watershed – Eligibility and Classification Eligibility Criteria Recommendations 1. Free- 2. Contains at Now After Elwha and flowing least one ORV Glines Canyon Dams are Removed Segment 1: Mouth to RM 15.3 Elwha River Currently is Contains 5 Not Eligible Eligible - not free- ORVs Recreational flowing, but will be once the dams are removed Segment 2: RM 15.3 to Headwaters Elwha River Free-flowing Contains 5 Eligible- Eligible - Wild ORVs Wild All Tributaries Indian Creek Free-flowing Contains 5 Eligible- Eligible- ORVs Recreational Recreational Little River Free-flowing Contains 5 Eligible- Eligible- Mouth to RM 1.4 ORVs Recreational Recreational RM 1.4 to headwaters Wild Wild All other tributaries Free-flowing Contains 5 Eligible- Eligible- ORVs Wild Wild ii Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE.....................................................................................................................................................................1 WILD & SCENIC RIVERS ACT - CRITERIA AND PROCESS ............................................................................................1 STUDY AREA/SEGMENTS - ELWHA RIVER WATERSHED ............................................................................................2 EXISTING ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTS .....................................................................................................................2 Draft Staff Report: Glines Canyon (FERC No. 588) and Elwha (FERC No. 2683) Hydroelectric Projects, Washington, Volume 1, March 1993 .....................................................................................................................3 The Elwha River Restoration Report, January 1994 .............................................................................................3 The Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Final EIS, June 1995 ............................................................................3 Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Final EIS, November 1996.................................................4 Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental EIS, July 2002 ..................................................................................4 FEDERAL MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................................4 Olympic National Park (ONP) ..............................................................................................................................4 Olympic National Forest .......................................................................................................................................5 Olympic Peninsula Wilderness ..............................................................................................................................5 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)........................................................................................5 NONFEDERAL MANAGEMENT.....................................................................................................................................6 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe ..................................................................................................................................6 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY ...........................................................................................................................7 FREE-FLOWING CONDITION .......................................................................................................................................7 OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES ..................................................................................................................8 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................................................8 Fish......................................................................................................................................................................14 Prehistoric Resources .........................................................................................................................................20 Historic Resources...............................................................................................................................................22
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Final Environmental Impact Statement Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Purpose and Need: The Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries are severely degraded as a result of two hydroelectric dams (projects) and their reservoirs built in the early 1900s. Congress has mandated the full restoration of this ecosystem and its native anadromous fisheries through the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (Public Law 102-495). The Department of the Interior has found there is a need to return this river and the ecosystem to its natural, self-regulating state, and proposes to implement the Congressional mandate by removing both dams in a safe, environmentally sound and cost effective manner and implementing fisheries and ecosystem restoration planning. Only dam removal would fully restore the ecosystem or its native anadromous fisheries. Proposed Action: The U.S. Department of the Interior proposes to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries through the removal of Elwha Dam and Glines Canyon Dam and implementing fish restoration and revegetation. Dam removal would occur over a 2-year period. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The proposed action is located in Clallam County, on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington State. Lead/Cooperating agencies: The National Park Service is the lead agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Dam – Hydro News
    SSoommee DDaamm –– HHyyddrroo NNeewwss and Other Stuff i 5/01/2009 Quote of Note: Thoughts on the economy: “If you’re in a traffic jam quit whining, it means you have a job” - - Paula Smith “If you have a job it’s a recession, if you’re laid off it’s a depression” - - Common “No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap.” - - Thomas Jefferson Ron’s wine pick of the week: Maipe Bonarda Mendoza, Argentina 2008 OOtthheerr SSttuuffffff::: (Oops, a funny thing happened on the way to the office, they forgot about or don’t know about pumped storage hydro, the ideal backup solution. They got it right on the other points though.) Getting real on wind and solar By James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch, Washington Post, 04/24/2009 Why are we ignoring things we know? We know that the sun doesn't always shine and that the wind doesn't always blow. That means that solar cells and wind energy systems don't always provide electric power. Nevertheless, solar and wind energy seem to have captured the public's support as potentially being the primary or total answer to our electric power needs. Solar cells and wind turbines are appealing because they are "renewables" with promising implications and because they emit no carbon dioxide during operation, which is certainly a plus. But because both are intermittent electric power generators, they cannot produce electricity "on demand," something that the public requires. We expect the lights to go on when we flip a switch, and we do not expect our computers to shut down as nature dictates.
    [Show full text]
  • Steelhead Response to the Removal of the Elwha River Dams
    Steelhead response to the removal of the Elwha River Dams Photo by John McMillan Pacific Coast Steelhead Management Conference March 22 2018 Walla Walla, WA Acknowledgements Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Mike McHenry, Ray Moses, Larry Ward, Mel Elofson, Sonny Sampson, Wilson Wells, John Mahan, Doug Morill, Robert Dohrn, Randall McCoy, Matt Beirne National Park Service Brian Winter, Anna Geffre, Josh Geffre, Heidi Hugunin, Phil Kennedy, Sam Brenkman, Pat Crain, Kathryn Sutton NOAA Fisheries George Pess, Martin Liermann, Todd Bennett, Steve Corbett, Oleksandr Stefankiv, Amilee Wilson, Zach Hughes, Tim Tynan, Eric Ward USGS Jeff Duda, Andy Ritchie, Chris Curran, Amy East, Jon Warrick Trout Unlimited WDFW US Fish and Wildlife Service John McMillan Joe Anderson, Chris O’Connell, Randy Roger Peters US Bureau of Reclamation Cooper, Mike Gross, Andrew Claiborne & K Denton & Associates Jennifer Bountry, Tim Randle WDFW Fish Ageing Laboratory Keith Denton Elwha River 833 km2 watershed Elwha Dam • built 1913 • 32 m tall • River km 8 Glines Canyon Dam • Built 1927 • 64 m tall • River km 21 Pess et al. 2008 NW Science 115 km of habitat upstream of Elwha Dam site Photo montage compiled by George Pess Photos from NPS time lapse camera Photo montage compiled by George Pess Photos from NPS time lapse camera Sediment release • 21 million m3 of sediment stored in former reservoirs • 16 million m3 in Lake Mills (upstream of Glines) • 5 million m3 in Lake Aldwell (upstream of Elwha) • Approximately two-thirds evacuated from former reservoirs • 90% delivered to
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Top left: Clackamas bull trout reintroduction, Clackamas River, Oregon. David Herasimtschuk, Freshwaters Illustrated; Top, right: Glines Canyon Dam removal, Elwha River, Washington. John Gussman, Doubleclick Productions; Center: South Fork Skagit River and Skagit Bay, Washington. City of Seattle; Bottom: Riverscape surveys, East Fork Quinault River, Washington. National Park Service, Olympic National Park Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) September 2015 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Lacey, Washington and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office Portland, Oregon Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. A-1 Current Status of Bull Trout in the Coastal Recovery Unit ........................................................ A-6 Factors Affecting Bull Trout in the Coastal Recovery Unit ....................................................... A-8 Ongoing Coastal Recovery Unit Conservation Measures (Summary) ..................................... A-33 Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation ..................................................................................... A-38 Recovery Measures Narrative ................................................................................................... A-39 Implementation Schedule for
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Monitoring Options for Assessing the Response of Salmonids and Their Aquatic Ecosystems in the Elwha River Following Dam Removal
    Michael L. McHenry1, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Fisheries Department, 51 Hatchery Road, Port Angeles, Washington 98363 and George R. Pess, NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, Washington 98112 An Overview of Monitoring Options for Assessing the Response of Salmonids and Their Aquatic Ecosystems in the Elwha River Following Dam Removal Abstract Removal of two hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River, Washington, one of the largest river restoration projects in the United States, represents a unique opportunity to assess the recovery of fish populations and aquatic ecosystems at the watershed scale. The current project implementation does not contain sufficient funding to support comprehensive monitoring of restoration ef- fectiveness. As a result, current monitoring efforts are piecemeal and uncoordinated, creating the possibility that project managers will not be able to answer fundamental questions concerning salmonid and ecosystem response. We present the initial elements of a monitoring framework designed to assess the effectiveness of dam removal on the recovery of Elwha River salmonids, their aquatic habitats, and the food webs of which they are an integral component. The monitoring framework is linked to the Elwha Fisheries Restoration Plan, which outlines the restoration of native stocks of salmon and relies upon a process of adaptive manage- ment. The monitoring framework includes two areas of emphasis—salmonid population recovery and ecosystem response. We provide study design considerations and make recommendations for additional monitoring efforts prior to dam removal. Based on a power analysis, we determined that a minimum of 3–11 years and up to 50 years of monitoring will be required to capture potential ecosystem responses following dam removal.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Olympics
    VOICE of the WILD OLYMPICS The Natural History of a Coastal Prairie In Olympic National Park by Ed Tisch Olympic Although typically they are forested, the tween Cape Alava and the north end of Lake Park Olympic lowlands support a sizeable number Ozette, belongs in the wet prairie category. It, Associates of coastal prairies. Harlan Bretz, an early too, has had a long fire history. In a recent in- Founded in 1948 Washington geologist, reported in 1913 that terview with Myra Vanderhoof, one of the last many of these occupy glacial outwash plains children born to homesteaders at the now-ex- and moraines (e.g., near Shelton and Sequim) tinct Lake Ozette settlement, she informed me Volume 10, No 2 where excessively-drained, gravelly soils pro- that in the early 1900s the white settlers found Spring 2002 duce summer-arid conditions. Fire has also an abundance of fire-scarred trees in the for- contributed to the sparsely-forested character ests adjoining Ahlstrom’s Prairie to the west. Contents of these “prairies,” which sometimes resemble At that time most of the trees between Ozette oak savannas. G.N. Jones, a 1937 University of and Cape Alava also seemed smaller than they Washington graduate student, felt that these are today. The homesteaders assumed that the OPA Meeting Schedule 2 “constituted the nearest approach to a grass- local Ozette Indians had burned their prairies land formation” in the Puget Trough region. to eliminate trees and to keep down the salal Congressional In stark contrast, however, the coastal prai- understories. When Myra first visited Contacts 2 ries of the rainy western Olympics are bog-like Ahlstrom’s Prairie, around 1927, she found it Roadless Bill ? 3 and tend to occur on clayey glacial tills where very sparsely forested.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon Vs. Dams: the Dam Removal Debate on the Elwha River
    Salmon vs. Dams: The Dam Removal Debate on the Elwha River Teachers: This lesson contains a classroom project with background related to the AFG video clips about salmon vs. dams. These parts may be used individually or together, depending on the needs of your class. Note: You can access and view the video clips used in this lesson in the Teacher Resources section of the AFG Web site www.pbs.org/americanfieldguide/teachers. Grade Level: 10-12 Background Hydroelectric Power has long been touted as a clean alternative source of energy. It produces roughly 70% of the power in the Pacific Northwest. However, hydroelectric is not without its costs. Salmon runs on the major river systems, such as the Columbia River, and on minor rivers, such as the Elwha River in Olympic National Park, have suffered greatly in recent decades, and some of these salmon species are becoming listed as endangered or threatened species. Today, large dams on the Columbia River, owned by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) provide the majority of power for the Pacific Northwest. Yet hundreds of small, privately owned dams are scattered around the region. These are in various states of disrepair, and often only provide enough power to fuel a small community or one or two factories. However, these dams do as much or more damage to the salmon runs in their area than the large dams (BPA dams have extensive programs to help the fish successfully navigate the dams). This lesson is derived from real testimony given to Congress regarding two of these small dams in the pristine Olympic National Park in Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • Clallam County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
    Clallam County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Clallam County Community Wildfire Protection Plan December 2009 Developed by Shea McDonald and Dwight Barry, Peninsula College Center of Excellence. Contributions and developmental assistance: Chris DeSisto, Tiffany Nabors, Erin Drake, and Aaron Lambert; Western Washington University-Peninsulas; Bill Sanders and Bryan Suslick, Washington Department of Natural Resources; Al Knobbs, Clallam County Fire District 3; Jon Bugher, Clallam County Fire District 2; Phil Arbeiter, Clallam County Fire District 1; Larry Nickey, Olympic National Park; Clea Rome, USDA-NRCS; and Dean Millett, US Forest Service. GIS analysis by Shea McDonald, Chris DeSisto, and Dwight Barry. Cartography by Shea McDonald. Project funded under Title III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Policy Context ............................................................................................................................. 7 Healthy Forests Restoration Act ........................................................................................................... 7 National Fire Plan .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • B-236481 Comments on Legal Issues Regarding Glines Canyon And
    .1- - Comptroler Geu-al * UtER of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 2dr'¢ _ \ B-236481 .February 16, 1990 The Honorable John D. Dingell Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairmang This is in response to your letter dated June 12, 1989, in which you asked for our views on three legal issues concerning the Glines Canyon and Elwha River Dams: (1) Whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction to issue a new license for the Glines Canyon Dam; (2) Whether FERC may add conditions to its annual licenses on the Glines Canyon Dam for the restoration of fisheries; and (3) Whether any federal agency may order either dam removed. First, we believe that FERC does not have jurisdiction to issue a new license for the Glines Canyon Dam. Second, because FERC does not have jurisdiction to issue a new license for the Glines Canyon Dam, it does not have authority to issue annual licenses, much less condition their issuance. Third, we have concluded that FERC has the authority to order either or both dams removed. We hope our comments are helpful to you. We have enclosed our more detailed analysis of these issues. Under our usual FILE C@YD ':u A agreement, this opinion will be available to the public 30 days from its date, unless you release it sooner. As agreed, we will provide you with our analysis of the nonlegal issues at a later date. Sincerely yours, Actingcomptroller General of the United States Enclosure B-236481 .
    [Show full text]
  • Dam Removal & the Elwha River
    Ecosystem response during the removal of the Elwha River Dams Photo by John McMillan June 2016 Chris Curran Dwight Barry Pat Connolly Tina Herschelman Chris Clark Mary Hunchberger Joe Anderson Jeff Chan Amy Draut Trisha O’Hara Mike Ackley Jeff Duda Randy Cooper Denise Hawkins Jason Dunham Mike Gross Roger Peters Nancy Elder Dan Spenser Guy Gelfenbaum Marshal Hoy Ian Miller Ian Jezorek Chris Konrad Chris Magirl Matt Beirne Josh Logan Phillip Blackcrow Sam Brenkman Joe Peterson Sonny Earnest Pat Crain Steve Rubin Tim Beechie Mel Elofson Josh Chamberlin Jerry Freilich James Starr Mike McHenry Heidi Hugunin Andrew Stevens Holly Coe Doug Morrill Josh Geffre Christian Torgersen Keith Denton Raymond Moses Jon Warrick Phil Kennedy Kurt Fresh Rebecca Paradis Kinsey Frick Lauren Kerr Kim Sager-Fradkin Andy Ritchie Polly Hicks Sonny Sampson Anna Kagley Anna Torrance Brian Winter Martin Liermann K Denton & associates Tim Randle John McMillan Jennifer Bountry Keith Denton Sarah Morley George Pess Christine Steele Gary Winans Tom Quinn Neal & Linda Chism Today’s talk • A national context for dam removal • Watershed description • Impacts of the Elwha river dams • The Elwha River Ecosystem & Fisheries Restoration Act • How much sediment is there & what is going to happen? • The removal of the Elwha River dams Photo by John McMillan • What has occurred during & since dam removal? • Summary Photo by Brian Cluer Dam Removal in the United States Number of dams removed (American Rivers 1912 to 2014) 600 (O’Connor et al. 2015) 500 400 300 200 100 http://www.mpcer.nau.edu/riverreborn/map.html 0 Increased removal over last 30 years 1915 - 251915 - 351926 1936 - 45 1946 - 55 1956 - 65 1966 - 75 1976 - 85 1986 - 95 1996 - 05 2006 - 15 Percent of total removed 60% (American Rivers 1999, 50% Doyle et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Bugler 2010 Designer and Editor Glines Canyon Dam (Left)
    8 Summer 2010 Olympic National Park BUGLER Summer Newspaper 2010 OlComeOlOlympic’ympic’ympic’ Explores WWs ilderilderildernessnessness Wilderness is... a place for people seeking solitude, escape, wildness, beauty and much more. A place for clean water, clean air, abundant wildlife, and diverse and unique plants. A place for the solo adventurer, families, mountaineers and for friends. A place for the young and the old. Wilderness Take A is a place for all people. For the past 25 years I have camped and hiked all over the west and Olympic National Park is still one of my favorite places. In this spectacular park my family and I can enjoy the comfort of a campground, take a short day hike or Last Look embark on a backpacking trip. I am always amazed that at Olympic I can stand on a sandy beach with waves By BARB MAYNES, Public Information Officer lapping at my feet and gaze out past mammoth sea stacks at the Pacific fter years of planning and preparation, Olympic Ocean, and the next day I can become immersed in the refreshing embrace National Park is gearing up for the largest dam of the temperate rain forest. Or I can walk through groves of giant trees removal in U.S. history and celebrating the ‘last while following the path of a crystal clear river up to its source in the lofty, A snow covered mountain passes and peaks that overlook the valley below. dam summer’ in the Elwha River Valley. Next summer, removal of Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the My spine has tingled as a giant bull elk and I have watched a mountain lion Elwha River will begin, the culminating step in a run along a huge log in the rain forest.
    [Show full text]
  • Elwha River Response to Dam Removals Through Four Years and a Big Flood
    Elwha River response to dam removals through four years and a big flood: Lessons learned, channel response, and sediment effects from the world’s largest engineered dam removal Andy Ritchie – NPS Elwha Restoration Project Hydrologist Amy East – USGS Research Geologist, Santa Cruz (talk “ringer”) Acknowledgments • The Elwha River studies are a collaborative effort building upon the adaptive management program funded through the National Park Service – USGS – NOAA – Army Corps of Engineers – Bureau of Reclamation – USFWS – Elwha Klallam Tribe – University of Washington – Seattle University – Volunteers – Many others 2 Elwha River Olympic National Seattle Park 50 km Mt. Rainier Elwha watershed, Olympic Peninsula, WA Dam removal in the U.S. Impacts of dams on Elwha River fish Total population decline Shift in species composition All native populations are very low in abundance Data from George Pess, NOAA Natural erosion of reservoir sediment Lakes Aldwell and Mills stored 21 million m3 of sediment. Removal had to be: . Fast enough to limit impacts to fish . Slow enough to be tolerated by infrastructure downstream, and minimize floodplain deposition Former lakebed, Lake Mills reservoir Dam removal timeline Reservoirs at beginning of dam removal (1/2 full of sediment*) (1/3 full of sediment*) *Rough estimate based on starting pool volume, but some sediment was upstream of full pool. Reservoirs after a year of dam removal Dam complications • Changed conditions related to construction of both dams were not entirely addressed by dam removal • Fish
    [Show full text]